From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1F5C130E5D for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708966624; cv=none; b=ftVhKU3nUPx0gIpcnclCZWTyW1W3JjRSxfc9KYhct4XmQln25NmeH26Xg7BvT7zIlhyrG5fvk8bJNh23Dcdpm0aGZZMvX+JnAlTF1oxpltDo92n1BKqd3c6L/cuiii5azsXUWMcHRHwvQVApMiALrX0ZCC3idA5qKrbSO823TNE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708966624; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MRMjJ6ayspXYKW83CX6njIWs29/9RIw/Kf+SkXCeANA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nV/vvDeVuwxk2sIjIpP9M9pKEvYa/FC1dQPf/A46/+MEHFmQPYGOfC9kAWG12/n+ZtB9PaDao1uy9KUWlZ0wZrmL7mJ7T3Mw1qaf145hc4cW+lGZZjgBU2WltMn9oFLhYNwoM8cktIL45JmZ0ZxCkpnar5n5rC5cOQLya0h1Y2Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=KtRSj6g/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="KtRSj6g/" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C837C433C7; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:57:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1708966624; bh=MRMjJ6ayspXYKW83CX6njIWs29/9RIw/Kf+SkXCeANA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KtRSj6g/V1Z9J1M1J/t+ID3GNynEzEI+Jfnuakpy6R4LD2phmEXKDLkpY0ccnbcG1 17VwTYVTHkl2XUGa/G7GVc7oFnAHEJxtmmpIOgSTr+3WEPDM3gAmgBJYZuGVAhwKje fRpxpX6qrrEQPtivCK6hKECevPR03c7ezzf4SAJLSAEsxSMX03zPbo+GGKxouS++DT qKBQjm5Nuq6EHaTaBIjbvLaG7i/ggjd6eoVLzUngq+aXoKl4YoDy9XEupe37003L/I J5PqUNTs1oaMSheGA0gIcFjbgC2p0wjQAM8mMBhvwq28TMeX/oVDvavrDRRTdK1OLK IV82co44qJodQ== Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 08:57:03 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Martin Jansa Cc: Zorro Lang , fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/*/Makefile: make sure group.list DIRT exists before install Message-ID: <20240226165703.GQ6188@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20240208225241.644701-1-martin.jansa@gmail.com> <20240225163042.rrb6djrhbs6e2fk5@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 07:01:48PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 5:35 PM Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 11:52:41PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > * sometimes make install was failing with: > > > cp: cannot stat 'group.list': No such file or directory > > > and bunch of non-fatal messages: > > > mv: failed to preserve ownership for 'group.list': Invalid argument > > > > I'm wondering ... isn't that expected? > > > > Why not let "make install" fail directly, if there's not a completed "make" ? > > Isn't that more familiar? > > It might if it fails reliably, but in OpenEmbedded builds where I was > seeing this in some CI builds it failed in about 1% of the builds, which is > enough to make the failure annoying and if this is meant to be expected > behavior than not failing reliably, for context see: > https://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/commit/?id=e8a1c9823b7e55dd2ca7f19a3fd3a05ae676bfe2 Aha, that explains the weird language in the commit message about "removing tests/*/group.list" and "adding some sleep" even though the patch doesn't actually do that. > so here it calls make in do_compile task (defined in autotools-brokensep), > then make install in do_install task and do_install was failing > _sometimes_, and I haven't seen single failure since this change was > applied. > > I'm not very familiar with xfstests, I wasn't even building it > intentionally (it's just part of one CI job which builds everything > available), so I might be missing something. Huh, that looks like the result of make trying to run the 'default' and 'install' targets in parallel because there's no "install: default" clause in the Makefile. Soooo... are you folks using 'make -jXX default install' in your CI system? --D > Regards, >