Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] ppc patch queue 2017-08-09

[Peter Maydell]

On 11 August 2017 at 09:51, David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:47:03PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 9 August 2017 at 08:03, David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > I haven't completed a Travis build for this, which is part of my usual
>> > test regime, since the first dozen or so Travis builds are failing
>> > more often than not on master as well.  I don't know why this is -
>> > seems to be failing some of the x86 tests.
>>
>> Doesn't look much worse than usual to me -- of the last 24 travis
>> builds for master 4 failed and 20 passed.
>
> Uh.. that's not been my experience.  I was a bit unclear in my
> description, though.  Until maybe a week and a half ago I found the
> Travis build was fairly reliable, though there were occasional
> transien failures.  Now, essentially every Travis build is failing for
> me.  Specifically most of the first dozen or so of the batch of build
> configurations on Travis fail (that's "X" not "!").  These seem to be
> transient failures in the sense that if I rebuild enough times they'll
> eventually pass, but unlike earlier when the builds would suceed most
> of the time, they now seem to succeed at best around 1/3 of the time
> (that's ~1/3 of the time for each configuration sub-build, so with a
> dozen or so apparently affected that means a complete passing build
> essentially never).
>
> See for example https://travis-ci.org/dgibson/qemu/builds/263312174
> where 5 subbuilds have failed (which is relatively few).  In each case
> the failing error seems to be something like:
>
> ERROR:tests/vhost-user-test.c:807:test_connect_fail: child process 
> (/i386/vhost-user/connect-fail/subprocess [55883]) failed unexpectedly
>
> Seems to be i386 in some cases and x86_64 in others.

Weird. https://travis-ci.org/qemu/qemu/builds is the master
build history and as you can see it's mostly greens.
Not sure why your setup would be significantly worse:
maybe one of the travis submaintainers has an idea.
It could just be our vhost-user-test is flaky but I don't
know why that should hit you much more than master...


thanks
-- PMM