Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iotests: Fix 173

[Max Reitz]

On 17.10.19 13:46, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 15.10.19 21:35, Eric Blake wrote:
>> This test has been broken since 3.0.  It used TEST_IMG to influence
>> the name of a file created during _make_test_img, but commit 655ae6bb
>> changed things so that the wrong file name is being created, which
>> then caused _launch_qemu to fail.  In the meantime, the set of events
>> issued for the actions of the test has increased.
>>
>> Why haven't we noticed the failure? Because the test rarely gets run:
>> './check -qcow2 173' is insufficient (that defaults to using file protocol)
>> './check -nfs 173' is insufficient (that defaults to using raw format)
>> so the test is only run with:
>> ./check -qcow2 -nfs 173
>>
>> Note that we already have a number of other problems with -nfs:
>> ./check -nfs (fails 18/30)
>> ./check -qcow2 -nfs (fails 45/76 after this patch)
>> and it's not on my priority list to fix those.  Rather, I found this
>> because of my next patch's work on tests using _send_qemu_cmd.
>>
>> Fixes: 655ae6b
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  tests/qemu-iotests/173     | 4 ++--
>>  tests/qemu-iotests/173.out | 6 +++++-
>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> On second thought, I wonder whether this test actually does anything
> with NFS.  It doesn’t look like it to me.
> 
> I wonder because for some reason I can’t get NFS to work with qemu at
> all.  I don’t think the iotests are at fault why so many tests fail,
> actually.

OK, I was just missing an “insecure” in my exports.  I hate debugging NFS.

Now I’m down to 16/76 for qcow2, and most of those look benign.  (As in,
they simply don’t support nfs.)

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature