* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
[not found] <632464ba.630a0220.d15ef.6eca@mx.google.com>
@ 2022-09-16 12:57 ` Guillaume Tucker
2022-09-16 16:28 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guillaume Tucker @ 2022-09-16 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlastimil Babka, Hyeonggon Yoo
Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow,
Shuah Khan
Hello,
On 16/09/2022 13:57, staging.kernelci.org bot wrote:
> kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
>
> Summary
> =======
>
> Tree: kernelci
> Branch: staging-next
> Describe: staging-next-20220916.0
> URL: https://github.com/kernelci/linux.git
> SHA1: d2957623a1103bf8971b0754bc04193dce0dbde2
>
> Name | Result | Total | Failures
> ----------------+----------+----------+---------
> kunit | fail | 244 | 4
> kver | pass | 0 | 0
> fstests | None | 247 | 5
>
>
> Failing tests
> =============
>
> kunit
> -----
>
> * slub_test.test_next_pointer
> * slub_test.test_first_word
> * slub_test.test_clobber_50th_byte
> * slub_test.test_clobber_redzone_free
We're just starting to run KUnit in Kubernetes with the new
KernelCI API & pipeline and these failures showed up on
next-20220916. Here's the details from the log:
[12:52:08] ================== slub_test (5 subtests) ==================
[12:52:08] [PASSED] test_clobber_zone
[12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:50
[12:52:08] Expected 3 == slab_errors, but
[12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
[12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:62
[12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
[12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
[12:52:08] not ok 2 - test_next_pointer
[12:52:08] [FAILED] test_next_pointer
[12:52:08] # test_first_word: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:85
[12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
[12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
[12:52:08] not ok 3 - test_first_word
[12:52:08] [FAILED] test_first_word
[12:52:08] # test_clobber_50th_byte: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:100
[12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
[12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
[12:52:08] not ok 4 - test_clobber_50th_byte
[12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_50th_byte
[12:52:08] # test_clobber_redzone_free: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:117
[12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
[12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
[12:52:08] not ok 5 - test_clobber_redzone_free
[12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_redzone_free
[12:52:08] # Subtest: slub_test
[12:52:08] 1..5
[12:52:08] # slub_test: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5
[12:52:08] # Totals: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5
[12:52:08] not ok 23 - slub_test
[12:52:08] ==================== [FAILED] slub_test ====================
I've reproduced them by hand with the same Docker environment so
it seems valid but it would be great if you could please confirm.
Are they known failures, and do you know when they were
introduced? They're not failing in mainline afaict.
We'll be adding support for tracking regressions soon so we'll be
able to know when failures start to appear automatically. For
now, it's useful to double check we're producing valid results.
Thanks,
Guillaume
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
2022-09-16 12:57 ` kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures Guillaume Tucker
@ 2022-09-16 16:28 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-09-16 22:17 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2022-09-16 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guillaume Tucker, Hyeonggon Yoo
Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow,
Shuah Khan
On 9/16/22 14:57, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 16/09/2022 13:57, staging.kernelci.org bot wrote:
>> kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
>>
>> Summary
>> =======
>>
>> Tree: kernelci
>> Branch: staging-next
>> Describe: staging-next-20220916.0
>> URL: https://github.com/kernelci/linux.git
>> SHA1: d2957623a1103bf8971b0754bc04193dce0dbde2
>>
>> Name | Result | Total | Failures
>> ----------------+----------+----------+---------
>> kunit | fail | 244 | 4
>> kver | pass | 0 | 0
>> fstests | None | 247 | 5
>>
>>
>> Failing tests
>> =============
>>
>> kunit
>> -----
>>
>> * slub_test.test_next_pointer
>> * slub_test.test_first_word
>> * slub_test.test_clobber_50th_byte
>> * slub_test.test_clobber_redzone_free
>
> We're just starting to run KUnit in Kubernetes with the new
> KernelCI API & pipeline and these failures showed up on
> next-20220916. Here's the details from the log:
>
> [12:52:08] ================== slub_test (5 subtests) ==================
> [12:52:08] [PASSED] test_clobber_zone
> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:50
> [12:52:08] Expected 3 == slab_errors, but
> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:62
> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
> [12:52:08] not ok 2 - test_next_pointer
> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_next_pointer
> [12:52:08] # test_first_word: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:85
> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
> [12:52:08] not ok 3 - test_first_word
> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_first_word
> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_50th_byte: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:100
> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
> [12:52:08] not ok 4 - test_clobber_50th_byte
> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_50th_byte
> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_redzone_free: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:117
> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
> [12:52:08] not ok 5 - test_clobber_redzone_free
> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_redzone_free
> [12:52:08] # Subtest: slub_test
> [12:52:08] 1..5
> [12:52:08] # slub_test: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5
> [12:52:08] # Totals: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5
> [12:52:08] not ok 23 - slub_test
> [12:52:08] ==================== [FAILED] slub_test ====================
>
>
> I've reproduced them by hand with the same Docker environment so
> it seems valid but it would be great if you could please confirm.
> Are they known failures, and do you know when they were
> introduced? They're not failing in mainline afaict.
Hi, what's the .config here please?
Thanks.
> We'll be adding support for tracking regressions soon so we'll be
> able to know when failures start to appear automatically. For
> now, it's useful to double check we're producing valid results.
>
> Thanks,
> Guillaume
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
2022-09-16 16:28 ` Vlastimil Babka
@ 2022-09-16 22:17 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-09-17 7:01 ` Guillaume Tucker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2022-09-16 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guillaume Tucker, Hyeonggon Yoo
Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow,
Shuah Khan
On 9/16/22 18:28, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/16/22 14:57, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 16/09/2022 13:57, staging.kernelci.org bot wrote:
>>> kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
>>>
>>> Summary
>>> =======
>>>
>>> Tree: kernelci
>>> Branch: staging-next
>>> Describe: staging-next-20220916.0
>>> URL: https://github.com/kernelci/linux.git
>>> SHA1: d2957623a1103bf8971b0754bc04193dce0dbde2
>>>
>>> Name | Result | Total | Failures
>>> ----------------+----------+----------+---------
>>> kunit | fail | 244 | 4
>>> kver | pass | 0 | 0
>>> fstests | None | 247 | 5
>>>
>>>
>>> Failing tests
>>> =============
>>>
>>> kunit
>>> -----
>>>
>>> * slub_test.test_next_pointer
>>> * slub_test.test_first_word
>>> * slub_test.test_clobber_50th_byte
>>> * slub_test.test_clobber_redzone_free
>>
>> We're just starting to run KUnit in Kubernetes with the new
>> KernelCI API & pipeline and these failures showed up on
>> next-20220916. Here's the details from the log:
>>
>> [12:52:08] ================== slub_test (5 subtests) ==================
>> [12:52:08] [PASSED] test_clobber_zone
>> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:50
>> [12:52:08] Expected 3 == slab_errors, but
>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:62
>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>> [12:52:08] not ok 2 - test_next_pointer
>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_next_pointer
>> [12:52:08] # test_first_word: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:85
>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>> [12:52:08] not ok 3 - test_first_word
>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_first_word
>> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_50th_byte: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:100
>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>> [12:52:08] not ok 4 - test_clobber_50th_byte
>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_50th_byte
>> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_redzone_free: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:117
>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>> [12:52:08] not ok 5 - test_clobber_redzone_free
>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_redzone_free
>> [12:52:08] # Subtest: slub_test
>> [12:52:08] 1..5
>> [12:52:08] # slub_test: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5
>> [12:52:08] # Totals: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5
>> [12:52:08] not ok 23 - slub_test
>> [12:52:08] ==================== [FAILED] slub_test ====================
>>
>>
>> I've reproduced them by hand with the same Docker environment so
>> it seems valid but it would be great if you could please confirm.
>> Are they known failures, and do you know when they were
>> introduced? They're not failing in mainline afaict.
>
> Hi, what's the .config here please?
> Thanks.
Nevermind, reproduced it and will fix soon, thanks!
Wonder why no other existing bot didn't report it sooner, it's been in next
for a while - they don't run kunit tests?
>> We'll be adding support for tracking regressions soon so we'll be
>> able to know when failures start to appear automatically. For
>> now, it's useful to double check we're producing valid results.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Guillaume
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
2022-09-16 22:17 ` Vlastimil Babka
@ 2022-09-17 7:01 ` Guillaume Tucker
2022-09-19 10:04 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guillaume Tucker @ 2022-09-17 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlastimil Babka, Hyeonggon Yoo
Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow,
Shuah Khan
On 17/09/2022 00:17, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/16/22 18:28, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 9/16/22 14:57, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On 16/09/2022 13:57, staging.kernelci.org bot wrote:
>>>> kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
>>>>
>>>> Summary
>>>> =======
>>>>
>>>> Tree: kernelci
>>>> Branch: staging-next
>>>> Describe: staging-next-20220916.0
>>>> URL: https://github.com/kernelci/linux.git
>>>> SHA1: d2957623a1103bf8971b0754bc04193dce0dbde2
>>>>
>>>> Name | Result | Total | Failures
>>>> ----------------+----------+----------+---------
>>>> kunit | fail | 244 | 4
>>>> kver | pass | 0 | 0
>>>> fstests | None | 247 | 5
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Failing tests
>>>> =============
>>>>
>>>> kunit
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> * slub_test.test_next_pointer
>>>> * slub_test.test_first_word
>>>> * slub_test.test_clobber_50th_byte
>>>> * slub_test.test_clobber_redzone_free
>>>
>>> We're just starting to run KUnit in Kubernetes with the new
>>> KernelCI API & pipeline and these failures showed up on
>>> next-20220916. Here's the details from the log:
>>>
>>> [12:52:08] ================== slub_test (5 subtests) ==================
>>> [12:52:08] [PASSED] test_clobber_zone
>>> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:50
>>> [12:52:08] Expected 3 == slab_errors, but
>>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>>> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:62
>>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
>>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>>> [12:52:08] not ok 2 - test_next_pointer
>>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_next_pointer
>>> [12:52:08] # test_first_word: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:85
>>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
>>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>>> [12:52:08] not ok 3 - test_first_word
>>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_first_word
>>> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_50th_byte: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:100
>>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
>>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>>> [12:52:08] not ok 4 - test_clobber_50th_byte
>>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_50th_byte
>>> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_redzone_free: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:117
>>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but
>>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0
>>> [12:52:08] not ok 5 - test_clobber_redzone_free
>>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_redzone_free
>>> [12:52:08] # Subtest: slub_test
>>> [12:52:08] 1..5
>>> [12:52:08] # slub_test: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5
>>> [12:52:08] # Totals: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5
>>> [12:52:08] not ok 23 - slub_test
>>> [12:52:08] ==================== [FAILED] slub_test ====================
>>>
>>>
>>> I've reproduced them by hand with the same Docker environment so
>>> it seems valid but it would be great if you could please confirm.
>>> Are they known failures, and do you know when they were
>>> introduced? They're not failing in mainline afaict.
>>
>> Hi, what's the .config here please?
>> Thanks.
>
> Nevermind, reproduced it and will fix soon, thanks!
Great! Since this was reported by a KernelCI email, could you
please add this to your fix?
Reported-by: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>
It was using the plain default config, I've put it here anyway:
https://storage.staging.kernelci.org/images/tmp/kunit-config
We'll soon be adding artifacts to test results, I guess we can
include the config file in that.
> Wonder why no other existing bot didn't report it sooner, it's been in next
> for a while - they don't run kunit tests?
I suppose we're the first public CI system to be running KUnit...
Glad that helped, sounds like a very good start.
Thanks,
Guillaume
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures
2022-09-17 7:01 ` Guillaume Tucker
@ 2022-09-19 10:04 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2022-09-19 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guillaume Tucker, Hyeonggon Yoo
Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow,
Shuah Khan
On 9/17/22 09:01, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> On 17/09/2022 00:17, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 9/16/22 18:28, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 9/16/22 14:57, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Hi, what's the .config here please?
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> Nevermind, reproduced it and will fix soon, thanks!
>
> Great! Since this was reported by a KernelCI email, could you
> please add this to your fix?
>
> Reported-by: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>
I'd love to, but it was still possible to amend the broken commit and
Reported-by: for the whole of it would be misleading. We currently lack a
standard way for giving the report credit in such situation :/
>
> It was using the plain default config, I've put it here anyway:
>
> https://storage.staging.kernelci.org/images/tmp/kunit-config
>
> We'll soon be adding artifacts to test results, I guess we can
> include the config file in that.
>
>> Wonder why no other existing bot didn't report it sooner, it's been in next
>> for a while - they don't run kunit tests?
>
> I suppose we're the first public CI system to be running KUnit...
> Glad that helped, sounds like a very good start.
Yep, thanks a lot!
> Thanks,
> Guillaume
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-19 10:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <632464ba.630a0220.d15ef.6eca@mx.google.com>
2022-09-16 12:57 ` kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures Guillaume Tucker
2022-09-16 16:28 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-09-16 22:17 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-09-17 7:01 ` Guillaume Tucker
2022-09-19 10:04 ` Vlastimil Babka
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.