[LU-10734] sanity test_160g: User cl8 still found in changelog_users Created: 27/Feb/18 Updated: 19/Jul/18 Resolved: 18/Jul/18 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 2.11.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | Lustre 2.12.0 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Minor |
| Reporter: | Maloo | Assignee: | Bruno Faccini (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | sles12, suse | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Severity: | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank (Obsolete): | 9223372036854775807 | ||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
sanity test_160g - User cl8 still found in changelog_users This issue was created by maloo for Bob Glossman <bob.glossman@intel.com> This issue relates to the following test suite run: test_160g failed with the following error: User cl8 still found in changelog_users This may be a dup of |
| Comments |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 28/Feb/18 ] |
|
more on master: |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 28/Feb/18 ] |
|
These fails only seen on master. Probably because sanity, 160g only exists on master. |
| Comment by Bruno Faccini (Inactive) [ 02/Mar/18 ] |
|
Well, it is strange that it seems to only fail running with SLES, and looks like it started to fail after my 1st patch for |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 05/Mar/18 ] |
|
more on master: |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 05/Mar/18 ] |
|
after many similar fails here is a SLES test run that did NOT hit the failure: Don't know what the diff is between runs that fail and those that don't. |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 06/Mar/18 ] |
|
here is a similar fail seen on el7, not on SLES at all. https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/b3cb95da-20dd-11e8-a4b1-52540065bddc |
| Comment by Mikhail Pershin [ 06/Mar/18 ] |
|
+1 on master, all with DNE |
| Comment by Bruno Faccini (Inactive) [ 07/Mar/18 ] |
|
Having a better look to the recent changes that may have introduced this regression, I think that "a37134d Hope to get more about this soon now. |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 07/Mar/18 ] |
|
It looks like this failure relates to the landing of patch https://review.whamcloud.com/27535 " |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 07/Mar/18 ] |
|
Note also that with patch https://review.whamcloud.com/31552 " |
| Comment by Peter Jones [ 07/Mar/18 ] |
|
> It didn't fail during normal testing, but I guess SLES is not part of regular testing. Well, it is tested regularly, but due to the round robin system used for pre-landing review test runs, it is not guaranteed to run before everything lands unless people proactively request this with test parameters. |
| Comment by Bruno Faccini (Inactive) [ 08/Mar/18 ] |
|
Eh eh, after taking some time to think about it, I was wondering if the only regression/side effect coming from patch https://review.whamcloud.com/27535 ("a37134d So a simple "sleep 2" at the beginning of sanity/test_160g should fix this problem. |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 09/Mar/18 ] |
|
Faccini Bruno (bruno.faccini@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/31604 |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 20/Mar/18 ] |
|
This fail is blocked for now. test 160g was added to ALWAYS_EXCEPT in a patch landed to master for |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 18/Jul/18 ] |
|
Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/31604/ |
| Comment by Peter Jones [ 18/Jul/18 ] |
|
Landed for 2.12 |