[adding direct cc to Osier]
On 04/16/2012 01:58 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>>> Rebasing to HEAD made things rather worse... now 3 checks are failing (without
>>>> my patch)...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Might be something simple like missing a build dep. Try getting some debug
>>> output from the tests and it might be clear. If it isn't something simple, I
>>> can give your patch a spin.
>>>
>>> - Cole
>>
>> So the initial failure turned out to be a missing libsasl2-dev. The other two
>> are new after the rebase:
>>
>> TEST: xml2vmxtest
>> ...
>> 31) VMware XML-2-VMX esx-in-the-wild-2 -> esx-in-the-wild-2
>> @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
>> memsize = "1000"
>> sched.mem.max = "118"
>> numvcpus = "4"
>> -sched.cpu.affinity = "0,1,2,5,6,7"
>> scsi0.present = "true"
>> scsi0.virtualDev = "lsilogic"
>> scsi1.present = "true"
>> 32) VMware XML-2-VMX esx-in-the-wild-3 -> esx-in-the-wild-3
>> @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@
>> displayName = "virtDebian2"
>> memsize = "1024"
>> numvcpus = "2"
>> -sched.cpu.affinity = "0,3,4,5"
>> scsi0.present = "true"
>> scsi0.virtualDev = "lsilogic"
>> scsi0:0.present = "true"
>> ...
>> PASS: test_conf.sh
>> --- exp 2012-04-16 17:27:09.672832070 +0000
>> +++ out 2012-04-16 17:27:09.672832070 +0000
>> @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
>> error: Failed to define domain from xml-invalid
>> -error: internal error topology cpuset syntax error
>> +error: operation failed: domain 'test' already exists with uuid
>> 96b2bf5e-ea49-17b7-ad2c-14308ca3ff59
>> FAIL: cpuset
>>
>> All three go away when I revert the following patch:
>>
>> commit 8fb2164cfff35ce0b87f1d513a0f3ca5111d7880
>> Author: Osier Yang <jyang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed Apr 11 22:40:33 2012 +0800
>>
>> numad: Ignore cpuset if placement is auto
Yes, I independently hit the same problem and conclusion this morning.
>>
>> So I would think I can call my patch tested now. ;)
>>
>
> Cool, thanks for checking. ACK to the original patch.
>
> Osier, looks like that patch caused some test fallout?
Daniel and I were discussing it on IRC, although I haven't yet tried
patching anything:
[09:30] danpb1 eblake: (04:03:19 PM) eblake: +error: operation failed:
domain 'test' already exists with uuid 88cb9633-8015-4624-a258-2a3cb9700ad0
[09:31] danpb1 eblake: the fact that we see that error message suggest a
pre-existing bug in the test suite - the XML being used to define the
test domain is missing a UUID
[09:31] danpb1 eblake: so the 2 repeated defines get different
auto-generated UUIDs & thus violate the uniqueness check
[09:31] danpb1 eblake: i expect if you fixed that problem, then you'd
now see the 'define' operation actually suceed
[09:32] eblake but since the test expects a topology syntax error, what
changed to make it no longer an error?
[09:33] eblake and thus exposing the latent bug in the uuid usage
[09:33] danpb1 oh sure, it sounds like we still have a bug in changed
semantics
[09:34] danpb1 eblake: + if (def->placement_mode ==
VIR_DOMAIN_CPU_PLACEMENT_MODE_STATIC) {
[09:34] danpb1 that line means we now don't ever parse the placement XML
and so won't see the bogus data
[09:35] danpb1 since the default value is PLACEMENT_MODE_DEFAULT instead
of PLACEMENT_MODE_STATIC
[09:35] danpb1 we need to treat DEFAULT + STATIC in the same way in the
parser
[09:36] eblake DEFAULT is primarily useful for where there is a
difference in the XML between omitting something and explicitly
requesting STATIC
[09:36] eblake but if we want to always default to STATIC, maybe we
could just trim the enum to get rid of DEFAULT and make STATIC == 0
[09:37] danpb1 i guess the intent was that we don't suddenly fill all
existing XML with a new attribute
[09:38] eblake in which case, default (for omitted) vs. static
(explicit, don't lose what the user had) makes sense
[09:38] eblake but then I agree that we need to handle both modes the
same when deciding what else to parse
--
Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list