From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
To: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t0610: work around flaky test with concurrent writers
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 17:26:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZwAJIRPUrxu5ox3w@pks.im> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <277c243f-7179-4946-99c8-b19ad5c85412@ramsayjones.plus.com>
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 03:47:01PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> On 04/10/2024 13:16, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Now the two reports are somewhat different from one another:
> >
> > - On Cygwin we hit timeouts because we fail to lock the "tables.list"
> > file within 10 seconds. The renames themselves succeed even when the
> > target file is open because Cygwin provides extensive compatibility
> > logic to make them work even when the target file is open already.
>
> Hmm, not so much for me! :(
>
> >
> > - On MinGW we hit I/O errors on rename. While we do have some retry
> > logic in place to make the rename work in some cases, this is
> > seemingly not sufficient when there is this much contention around
> > the files.
>
> I am seeing I/O errors.
Interesting! I wonder why I don't see them. Maybe it's boiling down to
timing again.
[snip]
> Can you think of anything else to try?
Not really, no. I'd be curious whether Windows 11 has the same failure
mode for Cygwin, but cannot test it myself.
> I would strongly suggest skipping this test on cygwin as well as MINGW.
Yup, I definitely agree. I was operating under the assumption that
Cygwin works alright. Now that we know that it doesn't we should adapt
the condition from "!MINGW" to "!WINDOWS".
Patrick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-04 15:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-04 1:02 v2.47.0-rc1 test failure on cygwin Ramsay Jones
2024-10-04 3:59 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-10-04 6:13 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-10-04 9:13 ` Johannes Schindelin
2024-10-04 10:09 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-10-04 11:11 ` Johannes Schindelin
2024-10-04 11:32 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-10-04 16:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-10-04 17:14 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-10-04 17:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-10-04 12:16 ` [PATCH] t0610: work around flaky test with concurrent writers Patrick Steinhardt
2024-10-04 14:47 ` Ramsay Jones
2024-10-04 15:26 ` Patrick Steinhardt [this message]
2024-10-04 16:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-10-04 16:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-10-04 15:32 ` [PATCH v2] " Patrick Steinhardt
2024-10-04 16:32 ` Ramsay Jones
2024-10-04 16:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-10-04 22:41 ` Jeff King
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=ZwAJIRPUrxu5ox3w@pks.im \
--to=ps@pks.im \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com \
--cc=steadmon@google.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).