Lukas Straub <lukasstra...@web.de> wrote: > On Tue, 02 May 2023 12:39:12 +0200 > Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> [...] >> >> my patches are only code movement and cleanups, so Lukas any clue? >> >> Lukas, I am going to drop the compress code for now and pass the other >> patches. In the meanwhile, I am going to try to setup some machine >> where I can run the upstream tests and see if I can reproduce there. >> BTW, I would be happy if you double check that I did the rebase >> correctly, they didn't apply correctly, but as said, the tests have been >> running for two/three days on all my daily testing, so I thought that I >> did the things correctly.
Hi > Hi, > I rebased the series here and got exactly the same files as in this > pull request. And I can't reproduce these failures either. Nice > Maybe you can run the CI just on the newly added compress tests and see > if it already blows up without the refactoring? It does, I don't have to check O:-) The initial reason that I did the compression code on top of multifd was that I was not able to get the old compression code to run "reliabely" on my testing. > Anyway, this series is not so important anymore... What about: - I add the series as they are, because the code is better than what we have before (and being in a different file makes it easier to deprecate, not compile, ...) - I just disable the tests until we find something that works. Richard, Lukas? Later, Juan. >> Richard, once that we are here, one of the problem that we are having is >> that the test is exiting with an abort, so we have no clue what is >> happening. Is there a way to get a backtrace, or at least the number >> >> Later, Juan. >>
