On 11/27/2015 12:14 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 18.04.2015 um 01:50 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>> Test the failure case for incremental backups.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> tests/qemu-iotests/124 | 57
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tests/qemu-iotests/124.out | 4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/124 b/tests/qemu-iotests/124
>> index 5c3b434..95f6de5 100644
>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/124
>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/124
>> @@ -240,6 +240,63 @@ class TestIncrementalBackup(iotests.QMPTestCase):
>> self.check_backups()
>>
>>
>> + def test_incremental_failure(self):
>> + '''Test: Verify backups made after a failure are correct.
>> +
>> + Simulate a failure during an incremental backup block job,
>> + emulate additional writes, then create another incremental backup
>> + afterwards and verify that the backup created is correct.
>> + '''
>> +
>> + # Create a blkdebug interface to this img as 'drive1',
>> + # but don't actually create a new image.
>> + drive1 = self.add_node('drive1', self.drives[0]['fmt'],
>> + path=self.drives[0]['file'],
>> + backup=self.drives[0]['backup'])
>> + result = self.vm.qmp('blockdev-add', options={
>> + 'id': drive1['id'],
>> + 'driver': drive1['fmt'],
>> + 'file': {
>> + 'driver': 'blkdebug',
>> + 'image': {
>> + 'driver': 'file',
>> + 'filename': drive1['file']
>> + },
>> + 'set-state': [{
>> + 'event': 'flush_to_disk',
>> + 'state': 1,
>> + 'new_state': 2
>> + }],
>> + 'inject-error': [{
>> + 'event': 'read_aio',
>> + 'errno': 5,
>> + 'state': 2,
>> + 'immediately': False,
>> + 'once': True
>> + }],
>> + }
>> + })
>> + self.assert_qmp(result, 'return', {})
>
> John, how naughty of you!
>
And here I thought it was OK because nobody yelled!
The yell was just delayed.
> It's interesting how many tests break now that I tried to add some
> advisory qcow2 locking so that people don't constantly break their
> images with 'qemu-img snapshot' while the VM is running.
>
> I think this one is a bug in the test case. I'm not completely sure how
> to fix it, though. Can we move the blkdebug layer to the top level? I
> think reusing the same qcow2 BDS (using a node name reference) would be
> okay. We just need to avoid opening the qcow2 layer twice for the same
> image.
>
I can either do that, or just fall back to fully allocating two images
and modify the test accordingly.
> Kevin
>
Is this for 2.5?
--js
