apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 1.6.0 release candidates
Date Sat, 06 May 2017 21:59:58 GMT
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:23:52 +0100
Nick Kew <niq@apache.org> wrote:

> > Failed Tests            Total   Fail    Failed %
> > ===================================================
> > testdso                     9      8     88.89%
> > testprocmutex               6      3     50.00%
> > testsock                   16      2     12.50%

> This is quite a lot to digest.  Would it be fair to
> assume that anything outside those failed tests is
> unlikely to be an actual regression from 1.5.x?

We're currently blocking on these.  It would be good
to unblock!  I'm mostly concerned right now about
whether any of those failures indicates a regression.
I've worked through a diff against 1.5.2 (r1676021)
and looked for changes to any of those modules that might
conceivably be the cause of a regression.

Here's what I find:

1. TESTDSO
No changes whatsoever in code related to DSO

2. TESTSOCK: r1733452, r1733595.
network_io/unix/sockopt.c: 
include/apr_network_io.h
test/testsock.c
Adds a case APR_SO_FREEBIND.

This looks unlikely to be a regression candidate
Is the new FREEBIND test one of the failures?
Any clue about the other?


3. TESTPROCMUTEX
locks/unix/proc_mutex.c
locks/unix/global_mutex.c
locks/unix/thread_cond.c
include/apr_proc_mutex.h
include/arch/unix/apr_arch_proc_mutex.h

Extensive changes with (some) consequences already discussed.
Any errors due to timedlock should be discounted: we'll add a
release note about "don't use unless prepared to work on it".
Are there any errors without timedlocks?

BTW, we could use reports from Windows, Netware and Beos on what
works for you.

-- 
Nick Kew

Mime
View raw message