Yes this is the expected behavior.
Pranith
On 07/03/2014 03:25 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
Hi
Running the first test on NetBSD, I get:
=
TEST 11 (line 22): ! find /mnt/glusterfs/0/file | xargs stat
find: /mnt/glusterfs/0/file: Input/output error
not ok 11
RESULT 11: 1
Pranith Kumar Karampuri pkara...@redhat.com wrote:
Yes this is the expected behavior.
Then is the not ok 11 something I should see?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
On 07/03/2014 04:56 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
Pranith Kumar Karampuri pkara...@redhat.com wrote:
Yes this is the expected behavior.
Then is the not ok 11 something I should see?
Yes. See why it is succeeding instead of failing?
Pranith
___
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:21:57PM -0400, Anand Avati wrote:
The following test case demonstrates the bug:
sh# mount -t glusterfs localhost:meta-test /mnt/one
sh# mount -t glusterfs localhost:meta-test /mnt/two
Hi,
One of the recent problems posted on gluster-devel regarding the ability to
view coredumps that occur during regression testing for patch acceptance was
discussed here [1].
Towards this, the core collection is now modified to collect system libraries
that were used by the executable that
Hi Niels/ Santosh,
tests/bugs/bug-830665.t is consistently failing on 3.5 branch:
not ok 17 Got *.redhat.com instead of \*.redhat.com
not ok 19 Got 192.168.10.[1-5] instead of 192.168.10.\[1-5]
and seems to be introduced by http://review.gluster.org/#/c/8223/
Could you please look into it?
On 07/04/2014 11:09 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Ravi,
I already sent a patch for it in the morning at
http://review.gluster.com/8233
Review please :-)
830665.t is identical in master where it succeeds. Looks like
*match_subnet_v4() changes in master need to be backported to 3.5 as
On 07/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:09 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Ravi,
I already sent a patch for it in the morning at
http://review.gluster.com/8233
Review please :-)
830665.t is identical in master where it succeeds. Looks like
*match_subnet_v4()
On 07/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:09 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Ravi,
I already sent a patch for it in the morning at
http://review.gluster.com/8233
Review please :-)
830665.t is identical in master where it succeeds. Looks like
*match_subnet_v4() changes
