Re: Some failures in 0.8.0b1

From: Paul H. Hargrove (PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2008 - 13:07:30 PST

  • Next message: Neal Becker: "Re: Some failures in 0.8.0b1"
    Neal,
    
      As always, thanks for your assistance in testing.
      The ptrace.ct bug has already been identified (BLCR bug 2455), with a 
    2.6.26.6-49.fc8/x86_64 kernel.
      However, the prctl failure is new to me (the test itself having been 
    added hours before 0.8.0_b1 was posted) and does not fail on my 
    2.6.26.6-49.fc8/x86_64 platform.  Any additional information you can 
    provide about this failure would be helpful (preferably in the form of a 
    new Bugzilla entry).
      I will investigate both between now and the final 0.8.0 release.
    
    -Paul
    
    Neal Becker wrote:
    > Fedora F9 x86_64.
    >
    >  sh ./RUN_ME 
    > PASS: atomics
    > PASS: cr_run
    > PASS: cr_targ
    > PASS: cr_targ2
    > PASS: cr_omit
    > PASS: dlopen
    > PASS: bug2003
    > PASS: run_on
    > PASS: save_exe
    > PASS: save_priv
    > PASS: save_share
    > PASS: save_all
    > PASS: reloc_exe
    > PASS: reloc_file
    > PASS: reloc_fifo
    > PASS: reloc_dir
    > PASS: reloc_all
    > PASS: clobber
    > PASS: stage0001.st
    > PASS: stage0002.st
    > PASS: stage0003.st
    > PASS: stage0004.st
    > PASS: critical_sections.st
    > PASS: replace_cb.st
    > PASS: failed_cb.st
    > PASS: failed_cb2.st
    > PASS: pid_in_use.st
    > cs_enter_leave: 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
    > PASS: cs_enter_leave.st
    > cs_enter_leave2: 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
    > PASS: cs_enter_leave2.st
    > cr_tryenter_cs: 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
    > PASS: cr_tryenter_cs.st
    > PASS: stopped.st
    > Detected 3 failures in /usr/libexec/blcr-testsuite/./ptrace.st:
    > 000 Process started with pid 10970
    > 001 ptrace child 10971 is READY
    > 002 ptrace parent 10972 is READY
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 003 cr_checkpoint(10971, "") exited with expected status 2360
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 004 cr_checkpoint(10971, "--ptraced-error") exited with expected status 2360
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 005 cr_checkpoint(10972, "") exited with expected status 2361
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 006 cr_checkpoint(10972, "--ptracer-error") exited with expected status 2361
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 007 cr_checkpoint(10971, "--ptraced-skip") exited with expected status 3
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 008 cr_checkpoint(10971, "--ptracer-skip") exited with expected status 2360
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 009 cr_checkpoint(10972, "--ptraced-skip") exited with expected status 2361
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 010 cr_checkpoint(10972, "--ptracer-skip") exited with expected status 3
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > 011 cr_checkpoint(10972, "--ptraced-allow") exited with expected status 2361
    > #ST_ALARM:10
    > !!! Alarm clock expired
    > !!! Missing final DONE
    > !!! Test killed unexpectedly by signal 9
    > FAIL: ptrace.st
    > PASS: edeadlk.st
    > PASS: pid_restore.st
    > PASS: simple.ct
    > PASS: simple_pthread.ct
    > PASS: cwd.ct
    > PASS: dup.ct
    > PASS: filedescriptors.ct
    > PASS: pipe.ct
    > PASS: named_fifo.ct
    > PASS: cloexec.ct
    > PASS: get_info.ct
    > PASS: orphan.ct
    > PASS: overlap.ct
    > PASS: child.ct
    > PASS: mmaps.ct
    > No hugetlbfs mount point found (test skipped)
    > SKIP: hugetlbfs.ct
    > PASS: readdir.ct
    > PASS: dev_null.ct
    > PASS: cr_signal.ct
    > PASS: linked_fifo.ct
    > PASS: sigpending.ct
    > PASS: dpipe.ct
    > PASS: forward.ct
    > PASS: hooks.ct
    > PASS: math.ct
    > PASS: sigaltstack.ct
    > checkpoint/nonzeroexit (signal 9)
    > FAIL: prctl.ct
    > ======================
    > 2 of 58 tests failed
    > (1 tests were not run)
    > ======================
    >   
    
    
    -- 
    Paul H. Hargrove                          PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov
    Future Technologies Group                 Tel: +1-510-495-2352
    HPC Research Department                   Fax: +1-510-486-6900
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory     
    

  • Next message: Neal Becker: "Re: Some failures in 0.8.0b1"