Re: qemu iotest 161 and make check

[Li Zhang]

On 3/31/22 09:44, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am 21.02.22 um 11:27 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> > Am 10.02.22 um 18:44 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> > > 10.02.2022 20:13, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > On 10/02/2022 15.51, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > Am 10.02.22 um 15:47 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> > > > > > 10.02.2022 10:57, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do see spurious failures of 161 in our CI, but only when I use
> > > > > > > make check with parallelism (-j).
> > > > > > > I have not yet figured out which other testcase could interfere
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@
> > > > > > >   *** Commit and then change an option on the backing file
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Formatting 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT.base', fmt=IMGFMT size=1048576
> > > > > > > +qemu-img: TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT.base: Failed to get "write" lock
>
> FWIW, qemu_lock_fd_test returns -11 (EAGAIN)
> and raw_check_lock_bytes spits this error.

I also run into this issue on S390 when running test cases.
I think it will report this "write" lock error if different processes 
are using the same image.

> Is this just some overload situation that we do not recover because we 
> do not handle EAGAIN any special.