* [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure @ 2010-03-31 3:06 Anthony Ton 2010-03-31 4:53 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Anthony Ton @ 2010-03-31 3:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 564 bytes --] Hi LTP Team, I run test case fcntl16 and get a failure on test case 2 with messages below fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 2 fcntl16 1 TFAIL : First parent lock failed fcntl16 2 TFAIL : Test case 1, errno = 37 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 2: with mandatory record locking FAILED I look into the code and think that it is trying to do a lock on the entire file with write lock using option F_WRLCK, 0, 0L, 0L, IGNORED. Is it correct? Can someone elaborate a little more? What does the errno = 37 mean? Thanks, Anthony [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1260 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev [-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure 2010-03-31 3:06 [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure Anthony Ton @ 2010-03-31 4:53 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 2010-04-01 2:33 ` Anthony Ton 2010-04-01 2:39 ` Anthony Ton 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Rishikesh K Rajak @ 2010-03-31 4:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Ton; +Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net Hi Anthony, >Hi LTP Team, >I run test case fcntl16 and get a failure on test case 2 with messages below I have tested with latest kernel 2.6.32 and i could not face this problem. Can you let us know about your setup little bit more ? > >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 2 >fcntl16 1 TFAIL : First parent lock failed >fcntl16 2 TFAIL : Test case 1, errno = 37 >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 2: with mandatory record locking FAILED > >>I look into the code and think that it is trying to do a lock on the entire file >with write lock using option F_WRLCK, 0, 0L, 0L, IGNORED. Is it correct? Can >someone >+elaborate a little more? What does the errno = 37 mean? This errno means you are not having any lock available while doing operation with fcntl, with F_SETLK . asm-generic/errno.h:#define ENOLCK 37 /* No record locks available */ -- Thanks & Regards Rishi LTP Maintainer IBM, LTC, Bangalore Please join IRC #ltp @ irc.freenode.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure 2010-03-31 4:53 ` Rishikesh K Rajak @ 2010-04-01 2:33 ` Anthony Ton 2010-04-01 2:39 ` Anthony Ton 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Anthony Ton @ 2010-04-01 2:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rishikesh K Rajak; +Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net Hi Rishikesh, I am running against kernel 2.6.27.18. I observe that if I running the test suite using runltp, then fcntl16 passes the test. However, if I run fcntl16 by itself, I get the TFAIL as mentioned in previous email. Do you know why the results are different if running fcntl16 from runltp vs. runing fcntl16 by itself? Thanks, Anthony -----Original Message----- From: Rishikesh K Rajak [mailto:risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:54 PM To: Anthony Ton Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure Hi Anthony, >Hi LTP Team, >I run test case fcntl16 and get a failure on test case 2 with messages >below I have tested with latest kernel 2.6.32 and i could not face this problem. Can you let us know about your setup little bit more ? > >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 2 >fcntl16 1 TFAIL : First parent lock failed >fcntl16 2 TFAIL : Test case 1, errno = 37 >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 2: with mandatory record locking FAILED > >>I look into the code and think that it is trying to do a lock on the >>entire file >with write lock using option F_WRLCK, 0, 0L, 0L, IGNORED. Is it >correct? Can someone >+elaborate a little more? What does the errno = 37 mean? This errno means you are not having any lock available while doing operation with fcntl, with F_SETLK . asm-generic/errno.h:#define ENOLCK 37 /* No record locks available */ -- Thanks & Regards Rishi LTP Maintainer IBM, LTC, Bangalore Please join IRC #ltp @ irc.freenode.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure 2010-03-31 4:53 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 2010-04-01 2:33 ` Anthony Ton @ 2010-04-01 2:39 ` Anthony Ton 2010-04-01 4:49 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 2010-04-01 7:07 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Anthony Ton @ 2010-04-01 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rishikesh K Rajak; +Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net I Rishikesh, My mistake, both of them fail. But one with error code 5 (runltp), while fcntl16 run by itself with error code 37. Regards, Anthony -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Ton Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:33 PM To: 'Rishikesh K Rajak' Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure Hi Rishikesh, I am running against kernel 2.6.27.18. I observe that if I running the test suite using runltp, then fcntl16 passes the test. However, if I run fcntl16 by itself, I get the TFAIL as mentioned in previous email. Do you know why the results are different if running fcntl16 from runltp vs. runing fcntl16 by itself? Thanks, Anthony -----Original Message----- From: Rishikesh K Rajak [mailto:risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:54 PM To: Anthony Ton Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure Hi Anthony, >Hi LTP Team, >I run test case fcntl16 and get a failure on test case 2 with messages >below I have tested with latest kernel 2.6.32 and i could not face this problem. Can you let us know about your setup little bit more ? > >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 2 >fcntl16 1 TFAIL : First parent lock failed >fcntl16 2 TFAIL : Test case 1, errno = 37 >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 2: with mandatory record locking FAILED > >>I look into the code and think that it is trying to do a lock on the >>entire file >with write lock using option F_WRLCK, 0, 0L, 0L, IGNORED. Is it >correct? Can someone >+elaborate a little more? What does the errno = 37 mean? This errno means you are not having any lock available while doing operation with fcntl, with F_SETLK . asm-generic/errno.h:#define ENOLCK 37 /* No record locks available */ -- Thanks & Regards Rishi LTP Maintainer IBM, LTC, Bangalore Please join IRC #ltp @ irc.freenode.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure 2010-04-01 2:39 ` Anthony Ton @ 2010-04-01 4:49 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 2010-04-01 7:07 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Rishikesh K Rajak @ 2010-04-01 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Ton; +Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:39:31PM -0400, Anthony Ton wrote: > Hi Rishikesh, > My mistake, both of them fail. But one with error code 5 (runltp), while fcntl16 run by itself with error code 37. Ok . /me is seeing some issue or regression here may be. > I am running against kernel 2.6.27.18. Will it be possible for you to test with 2.6.33 kernel on the same env ? meanwhile i will also spend some time on this early next week. -Rishi > I observe that if I running the test suite using runltp, then fcntl16 passes the test. However, if I run fcntl16 by itself, I get the TFAIL as mentioned in previous email. Do you know why the results are different if running fcntl16 from runltp vs. runing fcntl16 by itself? > Thanks, > Anthony > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rishikesh K Rajak [mailto:risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:54 PM > To: Anthony Ton > Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure > > > Hi Anthony, > > >Hi LTP Team, > >I run test case fcntl16 and get a failure on test case 2 with messages > >below > > I have tested with latest kernel 2.6.32 and i could not face this problem. > > Can you let us know about your setup little bit more ? > > > > >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 2 > >fcntl16 1 TFAIL : First parent lock failed > >fcntl16 2 TFAIL : Test case 1, errno = 37 > >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 2: with mandatory record locking FAILED > > > >>I look into the code and think that it is trying to do a lock on the > >>entire file > >with write lock using option F_WRLCK, 0, 0L, 0L, IGNORED. Is it > >correct? Can someone > >+elaborate a little more? What does the errno = 37 mean? > > This errno means you are not having any lock available while doing operation with fcntl, with F_SETLK . > > asm-generic/errno.h:#define ENOLCK 37 /* No record locks > available */ > > -- > Thanks & Regards > Rishi > LTP Maintainer > IBM, LTC, Bangalore > Please join IRC #ltp @ irc.freenode.net -- Thanks & Regards Rishi LTP Maintainer IBM, LTC, Bangalore Please join IRC #ltp @ irc.freenode.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure 2010-04-01 2:39 ` Anthony Ton 2010-04-01 4:49 ` Rishikesh K Rajak @ 2010-04-01 7:07 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Rishikesh K Rajak @ 2010-04-01 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Ton; +Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:39:31PM -0400, Anthony Ton wrote: > I Rishikesh, > My mistake, both of them fail. But one with error code 5 (runltp), while fcntl16 run by itself with error code 37. > Regards, > Anthony > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony Ton > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:33 PM > To: 'Rishikesh K Rajak' > Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: RE: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure > > Hi Rishikesh, > I am running against kernel 2.6.27.18. Gave a try on 2.6.27 kernel and i did not get any failure in both way as you tried. :/opt/ltp/testcases/bin # ./fcntl16 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 1 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 1: without manadatory locking PASSED fcntl16 0 TINFO : Exiting block 1 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 2 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 2: with mandatory record locking PASSED fcntl16 0 TINFO : Exiting block 2 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 3 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 3: mandatory locking with NODELAY PASSED fcntl16 0 TINFO : Exiting block 3 :/opt/ltp/testcases/bin # ./fcntl16_64 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 1 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 1: without manadatory locking PASSED fcntl16 0 TINFO : Exiting block 1 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 2 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 2: with mandatory record locking PASSED fcntl16 0 TINFO : Exiting block 2 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 3 fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 3: mandatory locking with NODELAY PASSED fcntl16 0 TINFO : Exiting block 3 :/opt/ltp/testcases/bin # uname -a Linux xxx 2.6.27.19-5-default #1 SMP 2009-02-28 04:40:21 +0100 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux :/opt/ltp/testcases/bin # -Rishi > I observe that if I running the test suite using runltp, then fcntl16 passes the test. However, if I run fcntl16 by itself, I get the TFAIL as mentioned in previous email. Do you know why the results are different if running fcntl16 from runltp vs. runing fcntl16 by itself? > Thanks, > Anthony > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rishikesh K Rajak [mailto:risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:54 PM > To: Anthony Ton > Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure > > > Hi Anthony, > > >Hi LTP Team, > >I run test case fcntl16 and get a failure on test case 2 with messages > >below > > I have tested with latest kernel 2.6.32 and i could not face this problem. > > Can you let us know about your setup little bit more ? > > > > >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Entering block 2 > >fcntl16 1 TFAIL : First parent lock failed > >fcntl16 2 TFAIL : Test case 1, errno = 37 > >fcntl16 0 TINFO : Test case 2: with mandatory record locking FAILED > > > >>I look into the code and think that it is trying to do a lock on the > >>entire file > >with write lock using option F_WRLCK, 0, 0L, 0L, IGNORED. Is it > >correct? Can someone > >+elaborate a little more? What does the errno = 37 mean? > > This errno means you are not having any lock available while doing operation with fcntl, with F_SETLK . > > asm-generic/errno.h:#define ENOLCK 37 /* No record locks > available */ > > -- > Thanks & Regards > Rishi > LTP Maintainer > IBM, LTC, Bangalore > Please join IRC #ltp @ irc.freenode.net -- Thanks & Regards Rishi LTP Maintainer IBM, LTC, Bangalore Please join IRC #ltp @ irc.freenode.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-04-01 7:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-03-31 3:06 [LTP] Fcntl16 test case 2 failure Anthony Ton 2010-03-31 4:53 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 2010-04-01 2:33 ` Anthony Ton 2010-04-01 2:39 ` Anthony Ton 2010-04-01 4:49 ` Rishikesh K Rajak 2010-04-01 7:07 ` Rishikesh K Rajak
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox