https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9733 Lustre <p>root@server17-el7-vm1 lixi]# df<br/> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on<br/> /dev/vda1 4822732 3867088 687612 85% /<br/> devtmpfs 429516 0 429516 0% /dev<br/> tmpfs 442640 0 442640 0% /dev/shm<br/> tmpfs 442640 5896 436744 2% /run<br/> tmpfs 442640 0 442640 0% /sys/fs/cgroup<br/> tmpfs 88532 0 88532 0% /run/user/0<br/> server17:/root 515929088 88766464 400931840 19% /mnt/nfs<br/> /dev/mapper/vgvdb1-lvvdb1 589644 3804 545676 1% /mnt/mdt0<br/> /dev/vdb2 991128 21684 900632 3% /mnt/ost0<br/> /dev/vdb3 991128 21688 900628 3% /mnt/ost1<br/> 10.0.1.148@tcp:/969362ae 1982256 43372 1801260 3% /mnt/lustre<br/> <span class="error">&#91;root@server17-el7-vm1 lixi&#93;</span># lctl --device 969362ae-MDT0000 changelog_register<br/> error: changelog_register: Invalid argument</p> <p>Jul 3 04:55:46 server17-el7-vm1 kernel: LustreError: 3900:0:(class_obd.c:398:class_handle_ioctl()) OBD ioctl: No device</p> LU-9733

changelog_register return failure

Bug Minor Resolved Fixed Wang Shilong Wang Shilong patch Mon, 3 Jul 2017 14:28:38 +0000 Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:39:31 +0000 Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:41:04 +0000 Lustre 2.10.1 Lustre 2.11.0 Lustre 2.11.0 Lustre 2.10.2 0 6 <p>Wang Shilong (wshilong@ddn.com) uploaded a new patch: <a href="https://review.whamcloud.com/27916" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://review.whamcloud.com/27916</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9733" title="changelog_register return failure" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9733"><del>LU-9733</del></a> obd: fix fsname parsing<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: 1<br/> Commit: 5854866c23e88eb60b5e04631a7b0f4f7bea037a</p> <p>What is the motivation for having numeric filesystem names? Would it be better just to require that the filesystem name always starts with a letter? The code being modified has existed since 2007, so I'm wondering if this is a new problem, or if the filesystem was just created?</p> <p>Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch <a href="https://review.whamcloud.com/27916/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://review.whamcloud.com/27916/</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9733" title="changelog_register return failure" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9733"><del>LU-9733</del></a> obd: fix fsname parsing<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: <br/> Commit: cae71501680330a38c9bb16c25bf9c85dc0ec4e0</p> <p>Landed for 2.11</p> <p>Minh Diep (minh.diep@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: <a href="https://review.whamcloud.com/28814" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://review.whamcloud.com/28814</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9733" title="changelog_register return failure" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9733"><del>LU-9733</del></a> obd: fix fsname parsing<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: b2_10<br/> Current Patch Set: 1<br/> Commit: dcf72f7b436a1d4a262e05e67f588e8bd94b9d23</p> <p>John L. Hammond (john.hammond@intel.com) merged in patch <a href="https://review.whamcloud.com/28814/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://review.whamcloud.com/28814/</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9733" title="changelog_register return failure" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9733"><del>LU-9733</del></a> obd: fix fsname parsing<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: b2_10<br/> Current Patch Set: <br/> Commit: 598b1bd8785db34a1c55f562bb95f1e400880961</p> <p>Seen again in master/b2_10 interop (builds 3652 and 30).</p> <p><a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/43f300b2-b031-11e7-8d8d-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/43f300b2-b031-11e7-8d8d-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>It seems that the failures still showing up are on older version before the fix landed. The fix is in 2.10.2 and 2.11. Marking as resolved and let's just reopen this if it reoccurs on a version containing the fix in the <b>server code</b>.</p> Development Rank 1|hzzg13: Rank (Obsolete) 9223372036854775807 Severity