qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>,
	"Daniel P . Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>,
	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Unit test+fix for problem with QEMU handling of multiple bind()s to the same port
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:36:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1497332162.2975.14.camel@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b358f743-e2d2-6b6f-cb82-0452574e6b27@redhat.com>

On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 14:39 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 02:19 PM, Knut Omang wrote:
> > This series contains:
> > * a unit test that exposes a race condition which causes QEMU to fail
> >   to find a port even when there is plenty of available ports.
> > * a refactor of the qemu-sockets inet_listen_saddr() function
> >   to better handle this situation.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Knut
> > 
> > Knut Omang (2):
> >   Add test-listen - a stress test for QEMU socket listen
> >   socket: Handle race condition between binds to the same port
> > 
> 
> I'd reorder the series, to put the fix first and the test second, rather
> than the (crippled) test first.  

Are there good reasons not to have the test first? (as long as it does not 
break the build). IMHO the logical test driven approach 
is to have the test first to highlight/reproduce the issue.

> Someone that wants to prove that the
> test works can easily apply the patches out of order.

Yes, but in my view that's both less logical and less convenient?

Thanks,
Knut

  reply	other threads:[~2017-06-13  5:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-09 19:19 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Unit test+fix for problem with QEMU handling of multiple bind()s to the same port Knut Omang
2017-06-09 19:19 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Add test-listen - a stress test for QEMU socket listen Knut Omang
2017-06-09 19:19 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] socket: Handle race condition between binds to the same port Knut Omang
2017-06-14  8:17   ` Daniel P. Berrange
2017-06-14 11:34     ` Knut Omang
2017-06-09 19:25 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Unit test+fix for problem with QEMU handling of multiple bind()s " no-reply
2017-06-09 19:39 ` Eric Blake
2017-06-13  5:36   ` Knut Omang [this message]
2017-06-09 21:04 ` no-reply
2017-06-13  6:42   ` Knut Omang
2017-06-13  7:21     ` Fam Zheng
2017-06-09 21:16 ` no-reply

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=1497332162.2975.14.camel@oracle.com \
    --to=knut.omang@oracle.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=eblake@redhat.com \
    --cc=kraxel@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /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).