Now that this test fails for the right reason, another bug is
revealed: #397.
Signed-off-by: Dan Smith <danms@us.ibm.com>
# HG changeset patch
# User dan@guaranine.beaverton.ibm.com
# Node ID 469dddcc907d0b79589c3e465cd59024acce9daf
# Parent e912f2e9b755bf8ce7d798867b3678759fa0df85
This test was failing for he wrong reason. Calls to block-attach after the
first *should* report failure, so the test should not fail because of this.
The test now fails because multiple calls to block-attach seem to detach the
block devicem, which is wrong.
diff -r e912f2e9b755 -r 469dddcc907d
tools/xm-test/tests/block-create/04_block_attach_device_repeatedly_pos.py
--- a/tools/xm-test/tests/block-create/04_block_attach_device_repeatedly_pos.py
Fri Nov 11 17:05:20 2005
+++ b/tools/xm-test/tests/block-create/04_block_attach_device_repeatedly_pos.py
Fri Nov 11 18:44:56 2005
@@ -38,11 +38,13 @@
for i in range(10):
status, output = traceCommand("xm block-attach %s phy:ram1 sdb1 w" %
domain.getName())
- if status != 0:
- FAIL("xm block-attach returned invalid %i != 0" % status)
+ if i == 0 and status != 0:
+ FAIL("xm block attach returned invalid %i != 0" % status)
+ if i > 0 and status == 0:
+ FAIL("xm block-attach (repeat) returned invalid %i >
0" % status)
run = console.runCmd("cat /proc/partitions")
if not re.search("sdb1", run[''output'']):
- FAIL("Device is not actually attached to domU")
+ FAIL("Device is not actually attached to domU")
# Close the console
console.closeConsole()
--
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Hypervisor Team
email: danms@us.ibm.com
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ewan Mellor
2005-Nov-12 17:26 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][XM-TEST] Fix test 04_block_attach
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:46:23AM -0800, Dan Smith wrote:> Now that this test fails for the right reason, another bug is > revealed: #397. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Smith <danms@us.ibm.com> > > # HG changeset patch > # User dan@guaranine.beaverton.ibm.com > # Node ID 469dddcc907d0b79589c3e465cd59024acce9daf > # Parent e912f2e9b755bf8ce7d798867b3678759fa0df85 > This test was failing for he wrong reason. Calls to block-attach after the > first *should* report failure, so the test should not fail because of this. > The test now fails because multiple calls to block-attach seem to detach the > block devicem, which is wrong.Applied, thanks. Ewan. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel