<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Deepak C Shetty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deepakcs@redhat.com" target="_blank">deepakcs@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi CI'ers :)<br>
Just wanted to send a quick update on the glusterfs CI job (check-tempest-dsvm-full-<u></u>glusterfs-nv) currently failing on most patches, is due to the recently enabled test_volume_boot_pattern which is failing for glusterfs backend.<br>
<br>
I have opened LP bug <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1441050" target="_blank">https://bugs.launchpad.net/<u></u>cinder/+bug/1441050</a> to track the issue.<br>
Bharat (in CC) is actively working on it.<br>
<br>
I would like to know if we continue with the status-quo or disable this testcase for glusterfs until this bug is fixed ?<br>
<br>
thanx,<br>
deepak<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Third-party-announce mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Third-party-announce@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">Third-party-announce@lists.<u></u>openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/third-party-announce" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>third-party-announce</a><br>
</blockquote></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">Seems the trend for Ceph is to add a skip [1]. Personally I'd like to see some more analysis before just skipping, even better actually see the problem fixed. For the record, I'm not a fan of immediately skipping/disabling for a single backend. We've been pretty hard on Vendors the last few weeks that weren't running all of the same tests as the reference implementation. But in the case of Ceph and now Gluster it seems we have "different" standards.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to this, and I gave my +1 to the Ceph patch (and would give it to the Gluster patch with more info). I'm just saying however that we need to get some consistency here and treat everybody fairly. I spent "A LOT" of time this release cycle making sure my device and the LVM device worked properly, significantly more on LVM. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">I proposed a temporary skip for LVM once and it was adamantly rejected. I then proposed a sleep in Nova for the LVM driver, again rejected. The response has been "The issue needs to be fixed or at least completely understood". Same holds true here in my opinion.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">Thanks,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">John</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">[1]: <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/170903/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/170903/</a></div><br></div></div>