Am 15.04.2015 um 11:34 hat Andreas Färber geschrieben: > Am 15.04.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Kevin Wolf: > > Am 15.04.2015 um 06:53 hat Jeff Cody geschrieben: > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:57:35AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >>> Am 11.04.2015 um 05:41 hat Andreas Färber geschrieben: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> 001 seems to hang for -qcow (or is not reasonably "quick": >5 min). > >>>> > >>>> 033 is failing for -vhdx. > >>>> > >>>> (Note that `make check-block` only tests -qcow2, so didn't uncover > >>>> either of them.) > >>>> > >>>> Given a failing test, am I seeing correctly that there is no command > >>>> line option to skip this one failing test? -x seems to be for groups > >>>> only. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Andreas > >>>> > >>>> $ ./check -v -T -qcow -g quick > >>>> [...] > >>>> 001 6s ... [05:12:39] > >>> > >>> qcow1 is just really slow. 001 passes for me, after 202 seconds (that's > >>> on my SSD, YMMV). > >>> > >>>> $ ./check -v -T -vhdx -g quick > >>>> [...] > >>>> 033 1s ... [04:06:09] [04:06:11] - output mismatch (see > >>>> 033.out.bad) > >>> > >>> This seems to be because blkdebug doesn't implement .bdrv_truncate. > >>> Currently the test case isn't suitable for VHDX, which uses explicit > >>> bdrv_truncate() calls to grow the image file. I'll send a patch for > >>> blkdebug to allow this. > >>> > >>> However, it seems that there is another problem which causes assertion > >>> failures when using VHDX over blkdebug. Jeff, does the following fix > >>> make sense to you? (I think it does, but I don't understand yet why the > >>> assertion failure is only triggered with blkdebug - or in other words: > >>> "how could this ever work?") > >>> > >>> Kevin > >> > >> Kevin, > >> > >> Yes, looking at that fix it makes sense - we are wanting to pad the > >> back part of the block after the actual data with zeros. That back > >> length should be (block size - (bytes avail + block offset)), which is > >> iov2.iov_len. > >> > >> There are two reasons I think we haven't seen this issue (it has been > >> hidden): > >> > >> 1.) If bs->file supports zero init, we don't do any of this > > > > I see. file does and blkdebug doesn't, so that's the crucial difference. > > > >> 2.) This is done for the case when the existing BAT state is > >> PAYLOAD_BLOCK_ZERO. Until recently (commit 30af51c), we didn't > >> create VHDX files with blocks in the PAYLOAD_BLOCK_ZERO state. > > > > Right, I wasn't aware of this either any more. > > > >> So it has been a latent bug in a hitherto rarely (if ever) exercised > >> path. > > > > Thanks for your explanation, it's clear to me now what's going on. I'll > > send out the patches (for both blkdebug and vhdx) right away. You can > > either pick up the vhdx one, or just give your Acked-by and then I'll > > merge it through my block tree. > > Might 059 (?) failure for -vmdk be another symptom of the same issue?
059 passes for me with vmdk. If it fails for you, can you please paste the output diff? Kevin
