RE: Biweekly KVM Test report, kernel 51bfd299... qemu a1fce560...

Ren, Yongjie
2012-06-06T02:17:37Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Wolf [mailto:kwolf@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:51 PM
> To: Ren, Yongjie
> Cc: Marcelo Tosatti; Avi Kivity; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Liu, RongrongX
> Subject: Re: Biweekly KVM Test report, kernel 51bfd299... qemu
> a1fce560...
>
> Am 01.06.2012 10:31, schrieb Kevin Wolf:
> > Am 01.06.2012 09:57, schrieb Ren, Yongjie:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Marcelo Tosatti [mailto:mtosatti@redhat.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:28 AM
> >>> To: Ren, Yongjie
> >>> Cc: Kevin Wolf; Avi Kivity; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Liu, RongrongX
> >>> Subject: Re: Biweekly KVM Test report, kernel 51bfd299... qemu
> >>> a1fce560...
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:40:29AM +0000, Ren, Yongjie wrote:
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Kevin Wolf [mailto:kwolf@redhat.com]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:30 PM
> >>>>> To: Ren, Yongjie
> >>>>> Cc: Avi Kivity; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Liu, RongrongX
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Biweekly KVM Test report, kernel 51bfd299... qemu
> >>>>> a1fce560...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 21.05.2012 11:45, schrieb Ren, Yongjie:
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Kevin Wolf [mailto:kwolf@redhat.com]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 5:05 PM
> >>>>>>> To: Avi Kivity
> >>>>>>> Cc: Ren, Yongjie; kvm@vger.kernel.org
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Biweekly KVM Test report, kernel 51bfd299... qemu
> >>>>>>> a1fce560...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 21.05.2012 10:27, schrieb Avi Kivity:
> >>>>>>>> On 05/21/2012 06:34 AM, Ren, Yongjie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is KVM upstream test result against kvm.git
> >>>>>>> 51bfd2998113e1f8ce8dcf853407b76a04b5f2a0 based on kernel
> >>>>> 3.4.0-rc7,
> >>>>>>> and qemu-kvm.git
> a1fce560c0e5f287ed65d2aaadb3e59578aaa983.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We found 1 new bug and 1 bug got fixed in the past two weeks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> New issue (1):
> >>>>>>>>> 1. disk error when guest boot up via qcow2 image
> >>>>>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1002121
> >>>>>>>>> -- Should be a regression on qemu-kvm.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kevin, is this the known regression in qcow2 or something new?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the commit ID is right, it must be something new. The
> regression
> >>> that
> >>>>>>> Marcelo found was fixed in 54e68143.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, it's right. This should be a new regression.
> >>>>>> I looked at the comment of 54e68143, and found it was not related
> >>> the
> >>>>> issue I reported.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Launchpad bug refers to commit e54f008ef, which doesn't
> >>> include
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>> fix indeed. So was the test repeated with a more current
> qemu-kvm
> >>>>>>> version after filing the bug in Launchpad, or is the commit ID in
> this
> >>>>>>> mail wrong?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Latest commit 3fd9fedb in qemu-kvm master tree still has this
> issue.
> >>>>>> And, the commit ID provided in Launchpad is correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you please check if the bug exists in upstream qemu.git as well?
> >>>>>
> >>>> This bug doesn't exist on upstream qemu.git with latest commit:
> >>> fd4567d9.
> >>>> So, it should only exists on qemu-kvm tree.
> >>>
> >>> Please bisect manually (not using git bisect), with the attached list of
> >>> commits. These are the qemu -> qemu-kvm merge commits in the
> range
> >>> described as bad/good.
> >>>
> >> The 1st bad commit in your attached list is abc551bd
> >> More detailed info:
> >> 171d2f2249a360d7d623130d3aa991418c53716d good
> >> fd453a24166e36a3d376c9bc221e520e3ee425af good
> >> abc551bd456cf0407fa798395d83dc5aa35f6dbb bad
> >> 823ccf41509baa197dd6a3bef63837a6cf101ad8 bad
> >
> > Thanks, this points to the qcow2 v3 changes. Let's try to find the exact
> > culprit. I have rebased the qcow2 patches on top of that good merge
> > (fd453a24). Please apply the attached mbox on top of this merge:
> >
> > git checkout fd453a24
> > git am qcow2v3.mbox
> >
> > You can then start a git bisect between your new HEAD and fd453a24.
>
> Another thing you could try is if reverting e82dabd and bef0fd59 fixes
> the problem for you.
>
After reverting bef0fd59, it can work fine.