Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] iotests: Filter second BLOCK_JOB_ERROR from 229

[Max Reitz]

On 31.01.19 03:21, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/30/19 6:52 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Without this filter, this test sometimes fails.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> I intended to send this as part of my iotest fixes series, but it ended
>> up on the wrong branch...  Doesn't really matter, though, as there is no
>> functional dependency.
>> ---
>>  tests/qemu-iotests/229     | 6 +++++-
>>  tests/qemu-iotests/229.out | 1 -
>>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/229 b/tests/qemu-iotests/229
>> index 893d098ad2..b0d4885fa6 100755
>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/229
>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/229
>> @@ -81,11 +81,15 @@ echo
>>  echo '=== Force cancel job paused in error state  ==='
>>  echo
>>  
>> +# Filter out BLOCK_JOB_ERROR events because they may or may not occur.
>> +# Cancelling the job means resuming it for a bit before it is actually
>> +# aborted, and in that time it may or may not re-encounter the error.
> 
> Oh, because the job is "paused" and cancelling it involves job_enter,
> which we then allow the job to gracefully fail through it's own pathways
> -- but depending on where it failed originally, it may-or-may-not wind
> up trying something else that fails before it finds the "exit
> gracefully" signal, is that right?

That's at least how I explained it to me, yes.

> I guess there's no real way to adjust that behavior.
> 
>>  success_or_failure="y" _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE \
>>      "{'execute': 'block-job-cancel',
>>                   'arguments': { 'device': 'testdisk',
>>                                  'force': true}}" \
>> -     "BLOCK_JOB_CANCELLED" "Assertion"
>> +     "BLOCK_JOB_CANCELLED" "Assertion" \
>> +    | grep -v '"BLOCK_JOB_ERROR"'
>>  
>>  # success, all done
>>  echo "*** done"
>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/229.out b/tests/qemu-iotests/229.out
>> index 4c4112805f..a3eb33788a 100644
>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/229.out
>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/229.out
>> @@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ wrote 2097152/2097152 bytes at offset 0
>>  
>>  {"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "JOB_STATUS_CHANGE", "data": {"status": "running", "id": "testdisk"}}
>>  {"return": {}}
>> -{"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "BLOCK_JOB_ERROR", "data": {"device": "testdisk", "operation": "write", 
>> "action": "stop"}}
>>  {"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "JOB_STATUS_CHANGE", "data": {"status": "aborting", "id": "testdisk"}}
>>  {"timestamp": {"seconds":  TIMESTAMP, "microseconds":  TIMESTAMP}, "event": 
>> "BLOCK_JOB_CANCELLED", "data": {"device": "testdisk", "len": 2097152, 
>> "offset": 1048576, "speed": 0, "type": "mirror"}}
>>  *** done
>>
> 
> I think this is fine, if we cannot help to make this any more
> deterministic, so I'm fine with:
> 
> Reviewed-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
> 
> but I am curious to know if this poses any theoretical problems for
> libvirt having to deal with possibly an extra hiccup before the cancel
> registers.

Hm...  I would say the bigger issue is the error event appearing than
that not being the case.  Because it appears most of the time, I think
libvirt can deal with it.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature