Uploaded image for project: 'Lustre'
  1. Lustre
  2. LU-10215

disk2_5-ldiskfs.tar.bz2 is not packaged into test rpm

Details

    • 3
    • 9223372036854775807

    Description

      disk2_5-ldiskfs.tar.bz2 not included in th RPM means it's not really being tested in maloo.

      And of course since it's not being tested, nobody knows it actually fails in conf-sanity test 32b too.

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          is related to

          Improvement - An improvement or enhancement to an existing feature or task. LU-14853 conf-sanity: create ldiskfs and zfs filesystem upgrade images for 2.15

          • Major - Major loss of function.
          • Resolved
          is related to

          Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. LU-17943 conf-sanity test_32d: FAIL: set project failed

          • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
          • Resolved

          Question/Request - A product question or request LU-11643 create disk images for Lustre 2.10 and 2.12 for ldiskfs

          • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
          • Resolved

          Activity

            [LU-10215] disk2_5-ldiskfs.tar.bz2 is not packaged into test rpm
            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment -

            "Wei Liu <sarah@whamcloud.com>" uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/47281
            Subject: LU-10215 tests: Add disk2_5-ldiskfs.tar.bz2 into Makefile
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set: 1
            Commit: bd03b6109abbb630b5d73ec6561f428c4723ce76

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - "Wei Liu <sarah@whamcloud.com>" uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/47281 Subject: LU-10215 tests: Add disk2_5-ldiskfs.tar.bz2 into Makefile Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: bd03b6109abbb630b5d73ec6561f428c4723ce76
            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment -

            Assign to Sarah as discussed in the patch.

            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - Assign to Sarah as discussed in the patch.
            green Oleg Drokin added a comment -

            Hm, looks like symlinks processing have changed? The image before and after upgrade has different symlink inode numbers, only symlinks appear to be affected

             -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0  2261 1282455365 oddjobd
 -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0  2262 1270025191 rsyslog
 -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0  2296 1289554952 udev-post
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956452 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956453 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956453 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956453 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956454 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956454 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956455 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956452 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956453 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956453 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956454 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956454 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956454 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
-lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956455 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956510 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956511 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956511 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956512 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956512 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956512 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956513 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956510 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956511 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956511 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956512 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956512 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956512 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
+lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956513 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests
 -r-xr-xr-x 1 0 0  2442 1289551139 lvm2-monitor
 -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0  2515 1289565046 nscd
 -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0  2521 1289557304 sssd

            Any ideas?

            green Oleg Drokin added a comment - Hm, looks like symlinks processing have changed? The image before and after upgrade has different symlink inode numbers, only symlinks appear to be affected -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0 2261 1282455365 oddjobd -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0 2262 1270025191 rsyslog -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0 2296 1289554952 udev-post -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956452 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956453 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956453 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956453 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956454 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956454 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956455 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956452 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956453 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956453 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956454 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956454 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956454 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests -lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956455 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956510 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956511 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956511 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956512 K99microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956512 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956512 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 23 1433956513 S00microcode_ctl -> ../init.d/microcode_ctl +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956510 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956511 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956511 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956512 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956512 K02libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956512 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests +lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 24 1433956513 S98libvirt-guests -> ../init.d/libvirt-guests -r-xr-xr-x 1 0 0 2442 1289551139 lvm2-monitor -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0 2515 1289565046 nscd -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0 2521 1289557304 sssd Any ideas?
            green Oleg Drokin added a comment - - edited

            The failute was basically this:

            DIFF OUTPUT where only fids changed
conf-sanity test_32b: @@@@@@ FAIL: list verification failed
conf-sanity test_32b: @@@@@@ FAIL: test_32b failed with 1
            green Oleg Drokin added a comment - - edited The failute was basically this: DIFF OUTPUT where only fids changed conf-sanity test_32b: @@@@@@ FAIL: list verification failed conf-sanity test_32b: @@@@@@ FAIL: test_32b failed with 1
            green Oleg Drokin added a comment -

            I totally expect this patch to fail - in the debug output we can see the fids changed so probably it was generated on a 32bit system and wrongly marked as 64bit?

            green Oleg Drokin added a comment - I totally expect this patch to fail - in the debug output we can see the fids changed so probably it was generated on a 32bit system and wrongly marked as 64bit?
            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - - edited

            Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30002
            Subject: LU-10215 tests: Package disk2_5-ldiskfs.tar.bz2 into tests rpm
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set: 1
            Commit: c99a3912914652ed72abe36aa7b08af86b646e15

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - - edited Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30002 Subject: LU-10215 tests: Package disk2_5-ldiskfs.tar.bz2 into tests rpm Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: c99a3912914652ed72abe36aa7b08af86b646e15

            People

              sarah Sarah Liu
              green Oleg Drokin
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: