From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4148 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2011 15:03:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 4042 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2011 15:03:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:02:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6JF2lbu000835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:02:47 -0400 Received: from springer.wildebeest.org (ovpn-116-31.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.31]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id p6JF2kmB027753 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:02:46 -0400 Received: by springer.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id D285C4BA9A; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:02:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Making the transport layer more robust From: Mark Wielaard To: systemtap@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1311065908.9144.27.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> References: <1311065908.9144.27.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1311087764.9144.42.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-q3/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 10:58 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > pr10854.exp acts strangely on rhel5, it seems fine on f14. It just sits > there waiting the reap staprun, which will never happen since it tries > to pkill it at the same time, that could be because the startup/exit of > staprun/stapio is much more robust now, but I don't fully understand the > expect spawn, catch, wait logic. Maybe it is some strange bug in the > rhel5 expect? Maybe I changed some expectation of staprun/stapio/module > interaction? Any help understanding the expect logic would be > appreciated. I think I narrowed this down to the following commit: commit 5c854d7ca64df766c581c9ed7ff81e04c9d1fa4d Author: Chris Meek Date: Wed Jul 13 10:31:47 2011 -0400 PR12890: Renaming modules in Staprun Although it is somewhat hard to say, because it doesn't always fail. But I have never seen it fail before this commit. Still trying to understand the real issue and the testcase though. So all help appreciated. Cheers, Mark