From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40233) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVhZZ-00087T-Ic for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:25:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVhZT-0005pU-Ka for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:25:21 -0400 Message-ID: <55005049.2080405@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:25:13 -0400 From: John Snow MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1425528911-10300-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> <1425528911-10300-3-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> <20150311121138.GA28559@tesla.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150311121138.GA28559@tesla.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/11] iotests: add transactional incremental backup test List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kashyap Chamarthy Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, vsementsov@parallels.com, stefanha@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com On 03/11/2015 08:11 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:15:02PM -0500, John Snow wrote: >> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz >> Signed-off-by: John Snow >> --- >> tests/qemu-iotests/124 | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/qemu-iotests/124.out | 4 ++-- >> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > This tests seems to fail locally: > > . . . > +====================================================================== > +FAIL: test_incremental_failure (__main__.TestIncrementalBackup) > +Test: Verify backups made after a failure are correct. > +---------------------------------------------------------------------- > +Traceback (most recent call last): > + File "124", line 331, in test_incremental_failure > + self.create_incremental() > + File "124", line 167, in create_incremental > + return self.wait_incremental(bitmap, validate) > + File "124", line 179, in wait_incremental > + self.assert_qmp_absent(event, 'data/error') > + File "/home/kashyapc/tinker-space/qemu-upstream/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py", line 282, in assert_qmp_absent > + self.fail('path "%s" has value "%s"' % (path, str(result))) > +AssertionError: path "data/error" has value "Input/output error" > + > +====================================================================== > +FAIL: test_transaction_failure (__main__.TestIncrementalBackup) > +Test: Verify backups made from a transaction that partially fails. > +---------------------------------------------------------------------- > +Traceback (most recent call last): > + File "124", line 448, in test_transaction_failure > + self.wait_incremental(dr1bm0, 'drive1') > + File "124", line 179, in wait_incremental > + self.assert_qmp_absent(event, 'data/error') > + File "/home/kashyapc/tinker-space/qemu-upstream/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py", line 282, in assert_qmp_absent > + self.fail('path "%s" has value "%s"' % (path, str(result))) > +AssertionError: path "data/error" has value "Input/output error" > + > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > . . . > > Complete stderr of `./check -qcow2` here: > > https://kashyapc.fedorapeople.org/virt/qemu-incremental-backup-tests/stderr-qemu-io-tests-qcow2-11MAR2015.txt > > And, as per the other two failures of tests 051 and 061 (that you > mentioned on #qemu yesterday), Kevin Wolf on IRC said: > > 051 was fixed, but the output has changed _again_. That change is from > armbru_'s commit 7ee6c1e18. We need to update the reference output. > > As for 061, Max sent a patch, but I think we need to fix qemu rather > than updating the reference output there > Because the error message has become considerably worse > > > To test, I applied these two series to yesterday's QEMU git master: > > [PATCH 00/11] block: incremental backup transactions > [PATCH v2 00/17] block: transactionless incremental backup > > So, I'm here (28 commits ahead of commit 3539bbb on master) after > applying the patch series: > > $ git describe > v2.2.0-1190-g41b7f5f > > I need to try w/ today's git though, yet. > OK, I'll check this again after I make my changes to the base series this is based on. I promise I wasn't seeing a failure then ;) If I can't reproduce I will be in touch to help diagnose what's going wrong. Thanks, --js