On Friday 20 June 2014 09:44 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
On 20/06/2014, at 3:49 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
Side-effect of merging this patch [1]. Have reverted the change to let
regression tests pass.
That seems to have fixed it.
+ Justin
Yeah. It has been fixed. Thanks :)
Regards,
Raghavendra
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/19/2014 11:32 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2014, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Turner wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I went through these a while back and removed anything that wasn't valid
>>> for GlusterFS. This
On 20/06/2014, at 3:49 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> Side-effect of merging this patch [1]. Have reverted the change to let
> regression tests pass.
That seems to have fixed it.
+ Justin
--
GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org
An open source, distributed file system scaling to several
petabytes, a
Hi,
I am seeing glupy.t test being failed in some testcases. It is failing
in my local machine as well (with latest master). Is it a genuine
failure or a spurious one?
/tests/features/glupy.t(Wstat: 0 Tests: 6
Failed: 2)
Failed tests: 2, 6
As per the logfile of
On 20/06/2014, at 3:43 PM, Raghavendra Bhat wrote:
> I am seeing glupy.t test being failed in some testcases. It is failing in my
> local machine as well (with latest master). Is it a genuine failure or a
> spurious one?
>
> /tests/features/glupy.t(Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Fai
On 06/20/2014 08:13 PM, Raghavendra Bhat wrote:
Hi,
I am seeing glupy.t test being failed in some testcases. It is failing
in my local machine as well (with latest master). Is it a genuine
failure or a spurious one?
/tests/features/glupy.t(Wstat: 0 Tests: 6
Failed: 2)
Hi Vijay,
Can you please take this patch in?
http://review.gluster.org/#/c/8138/
Thanks & Regads,
Rajesh
- Original Message -
> From: "Justin Clift"
> To: "Rajesh Joseph"
> Cc: "Gluster Devel"
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 7:49:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Build up of xfsmount dirs... ;)
>
On 06/20/2014 03:05 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:
On 06/20/2014 06:26 PM, Matteo Checcucci wrote:
Control: forwarded -1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454
On 06/20/2014 07:44 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
[...]
Yes, just sent a patch for review on master
:http://review.gluster.org/#
Control: forwarded -1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454
On 06/20/2014 07:44 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
Hi Matteo,
Thanks for the reproducer. I've filed a bug report here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454
Feel free to add yourself to the CC List to get notifie
No worries. :)
+ Justin
On 20/06/2014, at 2:59 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:
> Thanks Justin for letting me know. Its clearly a bug in the implementation. I
> will send a patch to fix this. Meanwhile if it is causing any test failures
> or other issues then you can have a temporary fix to delete th
KP,
One way to view relevant information from the core would be as follow,
1) before loading the core you need to tell gdb to look for shared objects in a
different path,
- using 'set solib-search-path'
- For us this translates to 'set solib-search-path
./lib:./lib/glusterfs:./lib/glusterfs/3.
Thanks Justin for letting me know. Its clearly a bug in the implementation. I
will send a patch to fix this. Meanwhile if it is causing any test failures or
other issues then you can have a temporary fix to delete them in the script.
Thanks & Regards,
Rajesh
- Original Message -
> From:
Hi Rajesh,
Looking at the regression testing boxes this morning, they all have
several thousand /tmp/xfsmount* dirs on them.
Seems like they're coming from this:
f1705e2d (Rajesh Joseph 2014-06-05 10:00:33 +0530 3988) char
template [] = "/tmp/xfsmountXX"
On 06/20/2014 06:26 PM, Matteo Checcucci wrote:
Control: forwarded -1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454
On 06/20/2014 07:44 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
Hi Matteo,
Thanks for the reproducer. I've filed a bug report here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454
Feel f
On 06/18/2014 10:49 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 06/16/2014 09:08 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 06/16/2014 09:00 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
I see that most of the tests are doing umount and these may
fail
sometimes because of EBUSY etc. I am wondering if we should change
On 06/19/2014 11:32 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
On 19/06/2014, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Turner wrote:
I went through these a while back and removed anything that wasn't valid for
GlusterFS. This test was passing on 3.4.59 when it was released, i am thinking
it may have something to do with a sym li
16 matches
Mail list logo
