qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PULL 00/16] qtest and gitlab-CI improvements


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PULL 00/16] qtest and gitlab-CI improvements
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:11:33 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0

On 12/20/21 10:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 10.24, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> +Alex & Paolo
>>
>> On 12/20/21 07:52, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2021 17.33, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 12/15/21 08:33, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> * Add virtio-net failover test
>>>>> * Make qtests a little bit more flexible with regards to reduced
>>>>> configs
>>>>> * Move libssh setup from configure to meson.build
>>>>> * Run device-crash-test in CI
>>>>> * Add jobs for NetBSD and OpenBSD to the CI
>>>>> * Test compilation with MSYS2 in the gitlab-ci, too
>>>>> * Add new virtio-iommu test
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>> Laurent Vivier (4):
>>>>>         qtest/libqos: add a function to initialize secondary PCI buses
>>>>>         tests/qtest: add some tests for virtio-net failover
>>>>>         tests/libqtest: add some virtio-net failover migration
>>>>> cancelling tests
>>>>>         tests/libqtest: add a migration test with two couples of
>>>>> failover devices
>>>>
>>>> On my ASan build directory I'm sometime getting:
>>>>
>>>> Running test qtest-i386/virtio-net-failover
>>>> (process:1558675): GLib-CRITICAL **: 16:19:12.556: g_rand_int:
>>>> assertion
>>>> 'rand != NULL' failed
>>>
>>> Weird, since the test is not using that function?
>>
>> Well it calls g_test_rand_int(), which calls it:
>> https://github.com/GNOME/glib/blob/main/glib/gtestutils.c#L1800
> 
> Ah, right. I think the problem is that g_test_rand_int() must not be
> called before g_test_init().
> 
> But actually, I think in this case we even don't want to use
> g_test_rand_int() since it's about generating a true random temporary
> file name, not a random number for a test case that could be influenced
> with the "--seed" CLI option.
> So I think using g_random_int() might be the better choice instead?

I think you are right.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]