From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cge30-0001Vh-GL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:02:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cge2w-0003Bo-Hh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:02:02 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]:36398) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cge2w-0003Be-As for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:01:58 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v77so10153129wmv.1 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:01:58 -0800 (PST) References: <20170222171327.26624-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <148778745330.150.5479386803551876071@0e2666bad730> <8737f6vw37.fsf@linaro.org> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: <8737f6vw37.fsf@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:02:04 +0000 Message-ID: <871suqvt0z.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v13 00/24] MTTCG Base enabling patches with ARM enablement List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: famz@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net, peter.maydell@linaro.org, mttcg@listserver.greensocs.com, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com, cota@braap.org, serge.fdrv@gmail.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com, bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org, fred.konrad@greensocs.com Alex Bennée writes: > no-reply@patchew.org writes: > >> Hi, >> >> This series failed build test on s390x host. Please find the details >> below. It also failed on x86-on-x86 MTTCG as well as other tests: >> ERROR:/var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-_186415r/src/cpus.c:1554:qemu_mutex_lock_iothread: assertion failed: (!qemu_mutex_iothread_locked()) >> GTester: last random seed: R02Sf1ce767b432f1559eaf8cc0c5a31eb02 > > Well I've seen this before if the IRQ chain doesn't do locking properly > but I'm at a loss why this breaks on an s390 host as the code is common. > > Does anyone have a spare s390 that I can test on? Look like I'll have to roll this in: https://github.com/stsquad/qemu/commit/c6f4245ffd9df8ffcd2d4d655c322189c19a6c1a Which conflicted with Paolo's re-factoring (209b71b60ef3341246038e1c926c3b704969cdd3). I'll leave it running overnight and see if I can do a cleaner fix. 14th's time is the charm ;-) -- Alex Bennée