From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (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 BB7D317BBD for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708893419; cv=none; b=HQSczy5zzo6yhh7wnVMcml9wdKsmenN39UtnHIOSEvQ7VBbABepe9EUJ75VYQn3NO0Q30J1T9s2wFSDBvDwLlid88V+CsTfk9Rt4qCgM2cTH8snNq6/6ds2GZuWtywQEKBWbTmJqNaYKqFTX3aR9JlZnZRSxASggsDmmQ9A53bU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708893419; c=relaxed/simple; bh=M+qJ0FNeFRh3XV6JJyjd1wBLeyybBk0COobHI5Q3pw8=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mjUs1jF+qoqeFmboxFfL3lCC9vfgo0WEsWJ5mDmAT582ixVqKhMo3IFbHKUksVJBSx6dVEjjfKcdhmlI+SgP2gBc3esWA+/UJjQv8DuFCHOB4fU0bMhUEE7Qx/5cCiWat71aT/TvUjJu8cAL2Ypd3FyU0SdiOj0JSn7VizdD9+8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (cpebc4dfb928313-cmbc4dfb928310.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.251.108] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 41PKasFJ2011459 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:36:54 GMT Reply-To: From: To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Torsten_B=F6gershausen'?=" Cc: References: <01bd01da681a$b8d70a70$2a851f50$@nexbridge.com> <01be01da681e$0c349090$249db1b0$@nexbridge.com> <20240225191954.GA28646@tb-raspi4> In-Reply-To: <20240225191954.GA28646@tb-raspi4> Subject: RE: [BUG] 2.44.0 t7704.9 Fails on NonStop ia64 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 15:36:49 -0500 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <01ca01da682a$5f6a7b60$1e3f7220$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-ca Thread-Index: AQH6KeHXK3ktIx6cNmAt1sL267+NoQLej1jbAXwNbRKwuStHcA== On Sunday, February 25, 2024 2:20 PM, Torsten B=F6gershausen wrote: >On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:08:35PM -0500, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote: >> On Sunday, February 25, 2024 1:45 PM, I wrote: >> >To: git@vger.kernel.org >> >Subject: [BUG] 2.44.0 t7704.9 Fails on NonStop ia64 >> > >> >This appears to be a new issue introduced at 2.44.0. It only occurs >> >on >> NonStop ia64 >> >1..9 >[snip] >> >> I did find the following calls to write(), one of which might be involved. >> write() should not be used directly unless the count is clearly very small. >> Xwrite() should be used instead. There are other calls but those are >> either small or not on platform. > >(Probably a typ0: Xwrite() -> xwrite() > >But I think that this should be used: >write_in_full() My mailer autocorrected, yes, xwrite. write_in_full() would be safe, although a bit redundant since xwrite() does similar things and is used = by write_in_full(). The question is which call is bad? The cruft stuff is relatively new and I don't know the code. >> reftable/writer.c: int n =3D w->write(w->write_arg, = zeroed, >> w->pending_padding); >> reftable/writer.c: n =3D w->write(w->write_arg, data, len); >> run-command.c: len =3D write(io->fd, io->u.out.buf, >> t/helper/test-path-utils.c: if (write(1, buffer, count) >> < 0) >> t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c: write(1, buf, nbr); >> t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c: write(1, buf, nbr); >> trace2/tr2_dst.c: bytes =3D write(fd, buf_line->buf, = buf_line->len);