On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:21:55AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:47:39PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 26.03.2018 um 08:11 hat Peter Xu geschrieben: > > > If there are more than one events, wait_until_completed() might return > > > the 2nd event even if the 1st event is JOB_COMPLETED, since the for loop > > > will continue to run even if completed is set to True. > > > > > > It never happened before, but it can be triggered when OOB is enabled > > > due to the RESUME startup message. Fix that up by removing the boolean > > > and make sure we return the correct event. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py | 20 ++++++++------------ > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py b/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py > > > index b5d7945af8..11704e6583 100644 > > > --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py > > > +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py > > > @@ -470,18 +470,14 @@ class QMPTestCase(unittest.TestCase): > > > > > > def wait_until_completed(self, drive='drive0', check_offset=True): > > > '''Wait for a block job to finish, returning the event''' > > > - completed = False > > > - while not completed: > > > - for event in self.vm.get_qmp_events(wait=True): > > > - if event['event'] == 'BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED': > > > - self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/device', drive) > > > - self.assert_qmp_absent(event, 'data/error') > > > - if check_offset: > > > - self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/offset', > > > event['data']['len']) > > > - completed = True > > > - > > > - self.assert_no_active_block_jobs() > > > - return event > > > + for event in self.vm.get_qmp_events(wait=True): > > > + if event['event'] == 'BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED': > > > + self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/device', drive) > > > + self.assert_qmp_absent(event, 'data/error') > > > + if check_offset: > > > + self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/offset', > > > event['data']['len']) > > > + self.assert_no_active_block_jobs() > > > + return event > > > > > > def wait_ready(self, drive='drive0'): > > > '''Wait until a block job BLOCK_JOB_READY event''' > > > > If an event is pending, but it's not the expected event, won't we return > > None now instead of waiting for the BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED event? > > If so, we'll return none.
Kevin is pointing out that this patch is broken. Previously the function waited for BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED, even when other events were pending when we entered the function. Now it returns None and does not wait for BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED! > The patch fixes the other case when there > are two events: one JOB_COMPLETED plus another (e.g., RESUME) event. > When that happens, logically we should return one JOB_COMPLETED event, > but the old code will return the other event (e.g., RESUME). > > > > > Wouldn't it be much easier to just add a 'break'? > > Yes, it's the same. But IMHO those logics (e.g., the completed > variable) are not really needed at all. This one is simpler. No, the outer loop is needed so that the function waits until BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED is received. It's not possible to do it with a single for loop. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
