* [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