From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6317 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2011 15:05:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 6307 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2011 15:05:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 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 15:05:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6JF5X4f000888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:05:33 -0400 Received: from [10.11.231.236] (deploy7.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.231.236]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6JF5XhX009042 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:05:33 -0400 Message-ID: <4E259D3D.4060206@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:05:00 -0000 From: William Cohen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Red Hat/3.1.11-2.el6_1 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: systemtap@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Making the transport layer more robust References: <1311065908.9144.27.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1311065908.9144.27.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00058.txt.bz2 On 07/19/2011 04:58 AM, 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. Another data point. PR10854.exp also acts strangely on the fedora 13 arm running a custom kernel from: git://gitorious.org/efikamx/linux-kernel.git $ uname -a Linux smartbook-fedora-arm 2.6.31.14.24-efikamx #1 PREEMPT Mon Jul 18 21:32:54 EDT 2011 armv7l armv7l armv7l GNU/Linux Ran with: make installcheck RUNTESTFLAGS="--debug systemtap.base/pr10854.exp" tail -f testsuite/systemtap.log: Running /media/pata/home/wcohen_fedora/systemtap_write/systemtap/testsuite/systemtap.base/pr10854.exp ... PASS: compiling pr10854.stp trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") trap: setting up signal 11 ("SIGSEGV") Seems to wait and wait. Hit control-c. then get the following in log: got a INT signal, interrupted by user === systemtap Summary === # of expected passes 1 runtest completed at Tue Jul 19 11:04:56 2011 -Will