Re: iotest failures in head [was: [PATCH v4 00/16] 64bit block-layer: part I]

2021-02-04 Thread Peter Maydell
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:45, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 22:47, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 17:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > > wrote: > > > Note that 30 is known to crash sometimes. Look at > > > > > > "[PATCH RFC 0/5] Fix accidental crash in iotest

Re: iotest failures in head [was: [PATCH v4 00/16] 64bit block-layer: part I]

2021-02-03 Thread Peter Maydell
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 22:47, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 17:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > wrote: > > Note that 30 is known to crash sometimes. Look at > > > > "[PATCH RFC 0/5] Fix accidental crash in iotest 30" > > > > https://patchew.org/QEMU/20201120161622.1537-1-vsement

Re: iotest failures in head [was: [PATCH v4 00/16] 64bit block-layer: part I]

2021-02-02 Thread Peter Maydell
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 17:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > Note that 30 is known to crash sometimes. Look at > > "[PATCH RFC 0/5] Fix accidental crash in iotest 30" > > https://patchew.org/QEMU/20201120161622.1537-1-vsement...@virtuozzo.com/ It certainly seems to be the least reliable iot

Re: iotest failures in head [was: [PATCH v4 00/16] 64bit block-layer: part I]

2021-02-02 Thread Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
02.02.2021 19:29, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: 02.02.2021 19:23, Kevin Wolf wrote: Am 02.02.2021 um 17:13 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote: I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into a snag.  Without this series applied, './c

Re: iotest failures in head [was: [PATCH v4 00/16] 64bit block-layer: part I]

2021-02-02 Thread Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
02.02.2021 19:23, Kevin Wolf wrote: Am 02.02.2021 um 17:13 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote: I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into a snag. Without this series applied, './check -qcow2' fails 030, 185, and 297. 297 appears to

Re: iotest failures in head [was: [PATCH v4 00/16] 64bit block-layer: part I]

2021-02-02 Thread Kevin Wolf
Am 02.02.2021 um 17:13 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > > > I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into > > a snag. Without this series applied, './check -qcow2' fails 030, 185, > > and 297. > > 297 appears to be fixed once Kevin's

iotest failures in head [was: [PATCH v4 00/16] 64bit block-layer: part I]

2021-02-02 Thread Eric Blake
On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into > a snag. Without this series applied, './check -qcow2' fails 030, 185, > and 297. 297 appears to be fixed once Kevin's pull request lands (well, that may be needing a v2). 185 appear