From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51293)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1aoUKX-0004St-IF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:12:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1aoUKW-0002Jh-Md
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:12:01 -0400
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:11:53 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160408111153.GD4700@noname.redhat.com>
References: <1459848109-29756-1-git-send-email-silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1459848109-29756-7-git-send-email-silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<57053631.5010009@redhat.com> <87shyxjh9w.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87shyxjh9w.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH 6/7] qemu-iotests: 141: reduce
 likelihood of race condition on systems with fast IO
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Sascha Silbe <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Tu Bo <tubo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Am 07.04.2016 um 22:27 hat Sascha Silbe geschrieben:
> Dear Max,
> 
> Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On 05.04.2016 11:21, Sascha Silbe wrote:
> >> On systems with fast IO, qemu-io may write more than 1 MiB before
> >> receiving the block-job-cancel command, causing the test case to fail.
> >> 
> >> 141 is inherently racy, but we can at least reduce the likelihood of the
> >> job completing before the cancel command arrives by bumping the size of
> >> the data getting written; we'll try 32 MiB for a start.
> >
> > Hm, interesting. I tried to prevent this by setting the block jobs'
> > speed to 1, which should make it stop after the block job has processed
> > the first block of data.
> 
> Hmm, seems like I didn't quite understand the way the test works
> then.
> 
> @Kevin: Please do NOT queue this patch.

No problem. I expect this series to go through Max's tree anyway.

Kevin