On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:41:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have done a total of 10 runs in the CI with the attached, without
> getting a failure. HEAD was failing a bit more easily than that, with
> at least one failure every 5 runs in my branches. Will go adjust that
> in a bit as per
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 11:03:25AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> I think that makes sense and the patch LGTM.
> A few tests are already using this technique (including injection_points in
> inplace.spec).
Well, that's not the end of the story, I have brushed the CF bot for
some activity and not
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 11:03:25AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> A few tests are already using this technique (including injection_points in
> inplace.spec).
Right. I've just re-enabled the permutation. Now let's keep a track
of the activity in the CI and the buildfarm.
--
Michael
signature
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 03:12:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 08:47:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Thanks for the review. Applied that, then.
>
> I was looking at src/test/isolation/README, and based on what is
> described for parenthesized markers (which
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 08:47:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks for the review. Applied that, then.
I was looking at src/test/isolation/README, and based on what is
described for parenthesized markers (which I didn't know about so we
learn a new thing every day), it is possible to force
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 09:27:13AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Thanks! LGTM.
Thanks for the review. Applied that, then.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 06:21:04PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 07:26:07AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > 1 === Nit
> >
> > s/Permutations like this one/Permutations like the following commented out
> > one/ ?
> >
> > 2 ===
> >
> > s/back its result/back its
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 07:26:07AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> 1 === Nit
>
> s/Permutations like this one/Permutations like the following commented out
> one/ ?
>
> 2 ===
>
> s/back its result/back its result once woken up/ ?
>
> 3 ===
>
> s/faster than the wait/before the SQL function d
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:40:05PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 02:06:11PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Yeah, agree that it would make sense to document in the test what has been
> > discovered here.
>
> How about something like the attached?
Thanks!
A few c
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 02:06:11PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Yeah, agree that it would make sense to document in the test what has been
> discovered here.
How about something like the attached?
--
Michael
diff --git a/src/test/modules/injection_points/specs/basic.spec b/src/test/modules/inj
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:20:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 07:59:31AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:12:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Under a wait of N seconds,
> >> we could still have environments where the wait() could
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 07:59:31AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:12:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Under a wait of N seconds,
>> we could still have environments where the wait() could remain stuck
>> more than N seconds between the moment the condition variable
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:12:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 07:17:28AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > I think that we can not be 100% sure that the s1 wait will finish before the
> > s2 detach (easy reproducible with gdb attached on s1 or an hardcoded sleep)
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 07:17:28AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> I think that we can not be 100% sure that the s1 wait will finish before the
> s2 detach (easy reproducible with gdb attached on s1 or an hardcoded sleep)
> and
> that other OS could also report the test as failing for the same re
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:33:12AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This is in the first permutation of the test done with "wait1 wakeup2
> detach2", and the diff means that the backend running the "wait"
> callback is reported as finished after the detach is done,
> injection_points_run being
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:33:12AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am going to remove the first permutation anyway to stabilize the CI
> reports. But it feels like we have a different problem here, and I am
> not sure what.
A few days later, I have looked at the full set of CF bot jobs and
9f00
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:13:59AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Used "basic" as test name at the end, tweaked the comment close to
> what you have suggested, and applied the result.
I have spotted a race condition with this test in some CF bot runs.
Here are some of them:
https://github.com/mic
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 06:16:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Sure, why not.
Used "basic" as test name at the end, tweaked the comment close to
what you have suggested, and applied the result.
Thanks for the review.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:58:26AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> I think that it makes sense to "expose" the basics in a dedicated test.
>
> I thought that template.spec could have been another "naming" option but
> basic.spec is better I think.
I am not wedded to the name I have proposed. N
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:44:08AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This was on my TODO bucket for some time. The isolation test
> "inplace" in the isolation test suite for injection_points relies on a
> couple of behaviors implemented in the backend. One of them is that a
> poin
Hi all,
This was on my TODO bucket for some time. The isolation test
"inplace" in the isolation test suite for injection_points relies on a
couple of behaviors implemented in the backend. One of them is that a
point detach should not affect a wait. Rather than having to guess
this stuff from th
21 matches
Mail list logo
