From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: do people find t5504.8 flaky?
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 23:02:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190423030254.GA19604@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqmukh5tj6.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:45:17AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I have been seeing occasional failures of t5504-fetch-receive-strict
> test on the cc/replace-graft-peel-tags topic, but it seems that the
> fork point of that topic from the mainline already fails the same
> step #8, only less frequently.
>
> The push is rejected as expected, but the remote side that receives
> the "push" fails and the local side does not leave an expected
> output we expect when the test fails.
No, I haven't seen it fail, nor does running with --stress turn up
anything. But looking at the test I would not be at all surprised if we
have races around error hangups. I believe that index-pack will die
unceremoniously as soon as something fails to pass its fsck check.
The client will keep sending data, and may hit a SIGPIPE (or the network
equivalent), depending on how much slack there is in the buffers,
whether we hit the problem as a base object or after we receive
everything and start resolving deltas, etc.
I think after seeing a fatal error we probably ought to consider pumping
the rest of the bytes from the client to /dev/null. That's wasteful, but
it's the only clean way to get a message back, I think. It would also
give us the opportunity to complain about other objects, too, if there
are multiple (it might make sense to abort before resolving deltas,
though; at that point we have all of the data and that phase is very CPU
intensive).
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-23 3:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-23 2:45 do people find t5504.8 flaky? Junio C Hamano
2019-04-23 3:02 ` Jeff King [this message]
2019-11-13 0:07 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-11-13 1:03 ` Jeff King
2019-11-13 2:07 ` Jeff King
2019-11-18 22:30 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-11-18 23:25 ` Randall S. Becker
2019-11-13 3:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-04-29 13:36 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190423030254.GA19604@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).