> > On Jan 29, 2019, at 08:39, Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:32 AM Enji Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> On Jan 28, 2019, at 20:10, Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:09 PM Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Author: kevans > >>>> Date: Tue Jan 29 04:08:49 2019 > >>>> New Revision: 343543 > >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/343543 > >>>> > >>>> Log: > >>>> bectl(8) test: Force destroy the zpool in cleanup > >>>> > >>>> This is a wild guess as to why bectl tests failed once upon a time in CI, > >>>> given no apparent way to see a transcript of cleanup routines with Kyua. > >>>> The > >>>> bectl tests construct a new, clean zpool for every test. The failure > >>>> indicated was because of a mount that was leftover from a previous test, > >>>> but > >>>> the previous test had succeeded so it's not clear how the mount remained > >>>> leftover unless the `zpool get health ${pool}` had somehow failed. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I left out: the tests are supposed to be constructed to clean up any > >>> mounts that were left over in the course of the test, hence the > >>> assumption that the failure lies in the cleanup. > >> > >> Hi Kyle, > >> > >> The tests use a deterministic zpool name defined locally (not globally), > >> and will only destroy the zpool if ?zpool get health? succeeds. > >> > >> The tests will work the first time (when the zpool doesn?t exist), but I > >> believe they?re actually introducing nondeterminism by accident. I will > >> propose a fix for this. > >> > >> There?s a way to decipher why things failed from /var/log/messages and > >> kyua output. It?s just nontrivial to those who don?t know what to look > >> for. Can you please provide a failing ci run? > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks! Any help is appreciated -- my inquiry to -testing@ in response > > to the weekly report where the failing test [1] was mentioned has been > > met with silence. The failure is consistent in the i386-test job, but > > amd64-test sees nothing of the sort (and neither does my local > > testing). > > Thanks for the reminder to rejoin that list. > > > [1] > > https://ci.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD-stable-12-i386-test/426/testReport/sbin.bectl/bectl_test/bectl_mount/ > > It?s pretty obvious from the above run what?s going on from the output. A > similarly named zpool (same prefix; suffixed with a 2) is being matched by > grep, even though the test sets up one with a suffix in the preceding steps. > > It?s probably and issue with timing and the bhyve implementation for amd64 vs > i386, or something else.
There is not a i386 mode of bhyve, ie all guests run in the same 64 bit virtualization and no part of the hyperviser knows if the guest is executing 32 bit or 64 bit code. -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
