Re: fs-test 44 XPASS

2015-05-17 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > > > Here is what I believe causes the different behaviour between > > test runs. To support read function that may block, e.g. wait for > > network buffers to flush, writes have been made non-blocking > > if they d

Re: fs-test 44 XPASS

2015-05-06 Thread Philip Martin
Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > Here is what I believe causes the different behaviour between > test runs. To support read function that may block, e.g. wait for > network buffers to flush, writes have been made non-blocking > if they don't update existing cache entries. If the write lock can > not be

Re: fs-test 44 XPASS

2015-05-05 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > fs-test 44 shows a problem when multiple threads access an FSFS txn, the > txn_dir_cache makes it possible for changes to be lost. Today I have > been seeing this test XPASS instead of XFAIL about 1 time in 30 when > running "./fs-test --par

fs-test 44 XPASS

2015-05-05 Thread Philip Martin
fs-test 44 shows a problem when multiple threads access an FSFS txn, the txn_dir_cache makes it possible for changes to be lost. Today I have been seeing this test XPASS instead of XFAIL about 1 time in 30 when running "./fs-test --parallel". I don't understand why. I see this with 1.9.x and tru