On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 14:05, Max Reitz wrote:
>
> On 18.10.19 18:10, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > Peter hit a "Could not open 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT': Failed to get shared
> > 'write' lock - Is another process using the image [TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT]?"
> > error with 130 already twice. Looks like this test is a
On 18.10.19 18:10, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Peter hit a "Could not open 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT': Failed to get shared
> 'write' lock - Is another process using the image [TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT]?"
> error with 130 already twice. Looks like this test is a little bit
> shaky, and currently nobody has a real clue
On 18/10/2019 18.51, Bruce Rogers wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 18:10 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Peter hit a "Could not open 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT': Failed to get shared
>> 'write' lock - Is another process using the image
>> [TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT]?"
>> error with 130 already twice. Looks like this te
On 10/18/19 12:10 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Peter hit a "Could not open 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT': Failed to get shared
> 'write' lock - Is another process using the image [TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT]?"
> error with 130 already twice. Looks like this test is a little bit
> shaky, and currently nobody has a real
On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 18:10 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Peter hit a "Could not open 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT': Failed to get shared
> 'write' lock - Is another process using the image
> [TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT]?"
> error with 130 already twice. Looks like this test is a little bit
> shaky, and currently nobod
Peter hit a "Could not open 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT': Failed to get shared
'write' lock - Is another process using the image [TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT]?"
error with 130 already twice. Looks like this test is a little bit
shaky, and currently nobody has a real clue what could be causing this
issue, so for the t
