Re: [DTrace-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] test: correct file permissions

On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:45:36PM -0500, Eugene Loh wrote:
> 
> On 1/6/26 21:22, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 08:20:10PM -0500, Eugene Loh wrote:
> > > On 1/6/26 00:54, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 11:50:53PM -0500, Eugene Loh wrote:
> > > > > The patch otherwise reads right to me.  The tests, however, are not happy.
> > > > > The following tests fail intermittently:
> > > > > 
> > > > >       test/demo/script/interp.d
> > > > >       test/demo/script/tracewrite.d
> > > > >       test/unittest/lockstat/tst.lockstat-summary.d
> > > > >       test/unittest/scripting/tst.arg0.d
> > > > >       test/unittest/scripting/tst.basic.d
> > > > >       test/unittest/scripting/tst.trace.d
> > > > > 
> > > > > These tests fail consistently:
> > > > >       test/unittest/scripting/tst.assign.d
> > > > >       test/unittest/scripting/tst.pgid.d
> > > > >       test/unittest/scripting/tst.pid.d
> > > > > The problem for these tests is
> > > > >       -#!/usr/sbin/dtrace -qs
> > > > >       +#!dtrace -qs
> > > > > Since these files used to be invoked as scripts, the -q was ignored.  The .r
> > > > > files relied on that.  So the interpreter files should drop the -q.  That
> > > > > does not fix them entirely;  it simply makes their failures intermittent.
> > > > Yes, I caught (I think) all of the opposite cases where I added a pragma to
> > > > ensure that the -q behaviour was retained, but I don't think I considered the
> > > > case where the script was not invoked using the #! and that therefore the -q
> > > > was not actually effective.
> > > > 
> > > > > I'll look more at the intermittent failures, but there may be more than one
> > > > > thing going on there.  (lockstat-summary looks different)
> > > > Thanks.
> > > The intermittent failures were weird, but that lockstat-summary.d should
> > > also fail is just plain insane.  The problem actually appears to be with a
> > > different patch.  So, I'm withdrawing the "intermittent failure" complaint
> > > about this patch, which should be ready for a final version.  Elsewhere,
> > > I'll report on what's really going on.
> > Yes, I believe it is due to:
> > 	[3/4] bpf: allocate the buffers BPF map to fit highest CPU id
> > 
> > I must have introduced a bug in that patch.
> 
> Right.  And I reviewed it.  We replace num_online_cpus with max_cpuid.  That
> should be max_cpuid+1.  Is it too late to rework that patch?  If so, I can
> supply a patch to amend it.  (Anyhow, events on the highest cpuid are
> missed.)

It is not too late - it has not been merged yet.