On 11 August 2016 at 15:56, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:37:27PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 11 August 2016 at 12:23, Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > The following changes since commit >> > d08306dc42ea599ffcf8aad056fa9c23acfbe230: >> > >> > Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/mst/tags/for_upstream' into >> > staging (2016-08-10 17:14:35 +0100) >> > >> > are available in the git repository at: >> > >> > http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/qemu/amit/virtio-serial.git >> > tags/vser-for-2.7-1 >> > >> > for you to fetch changes up to bce6261eb2d879625126485d4ddd28cacb93152e: >> > >> > virtio-console: set frontend open permanently for console devs >> > (2016-08-11 16:38:58 +0530) >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > virtio-console: fix receiving data from guest >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > Daniel P. Berrange (1): >> > virtio-console: set frontend open permanently for console devs >> > >> > hw/char/virtio-console.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++---- >> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> This hung in make check (clang-on-x86-64-linux build): >> >> Offending process: >> >> i386-softmmu/qemu-system-i386 -qtest unix:/tmp/qtest-5861.sock,nowait >> -qtest-log /dev/null -qmp unix:/tmp/qtest-5861.qmp,nowait -machine >> accel=qtest -display none -machine accel=tcg -m 512 -object >> memory-backend-file,id=mem,size=512M,mem-path=/tmp/vhost-test-wWBX5W,share=on >> -numa node,memdev=mem -chardev >> socket,id=chr-test,path=/tmp/vhost-test-wWBX5W/test.sock -netdev >> vhost-user,id=net0,chardev=chr-test,vhostforce -device >> virtio-net-pci,netdev=net0,romfile=./pc-bios/pxe-virtio.rom >> >> Backtraces below, but the fact that thread 3 is busy-looping in >> qemu_chr_fe_read_all() looks suspicious. > > Strange, because that command line doesn't even add a virtio-console > or virtio-serial device and AFAICT it doesn't hotplug any such device > either. So I'm unclear how this patch could affect that test at all.
Yeah, I did a manual rerun of the test and it didn't reproduce, so it might be an intermittent bug already in master :-( thanks -- PMM
