On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 13:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 07:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > I don't know... I tried running make check under "strace -e fcntl" and I
> > didn't find any occurrences of fcntl(1, O_SETFL, ...|O_NONBLOCK).
>
> I found this strace command worked to trac
On 04/01/19 14:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 07:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> I don't know... I tried running make check under "strace -e fcntl" and I
>> didn't find any occurrences of fcntl(1, O_SETFL, ...|O_NONBLOCK).
>
> I found this strace command worked to track down some po
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 07:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I don't know... I tried running make check under "strace -e fcntl" and I
> didn't find any occurrences of fcntl(1, O_SETFL, ...|O_NONBLOCK).
I found this strace command worked to track down some possible
culprits:
strace -o /tmp/strace.log -e fc
On 04/01/19 12:31, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I'll give this a go, but I think this will not necessarily be
> sufficient if some program invoked by make sets the O_NONBLOCK flag,
> and then make later in the same run tries to output and gets EINTR.
> Perhaps it would be better to put it in the test har
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 11:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 04/01/19 11:06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 07:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03/01/19 19:37, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 08:41, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>> Interestingly, I have today run int
On 04/01/19 11:06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 07:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 03/01/19 19:37, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 08:41, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Interestingly, I have today run into "make: write error: stdout"
>>> with the existing make check in
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 07:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 03/01/19 19:37, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 08:41, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Interestingly, I have today run into "make: write error: stdout"
> > with the existing make check infrastructure. [...]
> > I presume that somet
On 03/01/19 19:37, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 08:41, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 21/12/18 22:09, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I don't really understand what's going on here, or why
>>> it only happens with this one system (my main x86-64
>>> Linux Ubuntu 16.04.5 box) and not the v
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 08:41, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 21/12/18 22:09, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > I don't really understand what's going on here, or why
> > it only happens with this one system (my main x86-64
> > Linux Ubuntu 16.04.5 box) and not the various others I'm
> > running test builds on
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 08:41, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 21/12/18 22:09, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > I don't really understand what's going on here, or why
> > it only happens with this one system (my main x86-64
> > Linux Ubuntu 16.04.5 box) and not the various others I'm
> > running test builds on
On 21/12/18 22:09, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I don't really understand what's going on here, or why
> it only happens with this one system (my main x86-64
> Linux Ubuntu 16.04.5 box) and not the various others I'm
> running test builds on. But it does seem to be 100%
> reliable with any of these pullr
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 12:40, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> The following changes since commit e85c577158a2e8e252414959da9ef15c12eec63d:
>
> Merge remote-tracking branch
> 'remotes/huth-gitlab/tags/pull-request-2018-12-17' into staging (2018-12-18
> 14:31:06 +)
>
> are available in the git repo
The following changes since commit e85c577158a2e8e252414959da9ef15c12eec63d:
Merge remote-tracking branch
'remotes/huth-gitlab/tags/pull-request-2018-12-17' into staging (2018-12-18
14:31:06 +)
are available in the git repository at:
git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git tags/for-upstream
13 matches
Mail list logo
