<html><body><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div><br></div><div>Oh ok. I see that in ./tests/basic/gfapi/bug1291259.c the function glfs_upcall_get_reason() is causing segmentation fault, as per the stderr messages.<br></div><div>Adding Niels, if he wants to take a look at this.<br></div><div><br></div><div>We can mark the test bad by raising a Bz i suppose.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>Poornima<br></div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Krutika Dhananjay" <kdhananj@redhat.com><br><b>To: </b>"Poornima Gurusiddaiah" <pgurusid@redhat.com><br><b>Cc: </b>"Soumya Koduri" <skoduri@redhat.com>, "Pranith Karampuri" <pkarampu@redhat.com><br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:49:27 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: Regarding a consistent gfapi .t failure<br><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>No unfortunately I had no success with recreating the failure either on my setup or on a borrowed centos from jenkins cluster.<br><div><br></div></div>Ok this is good information. I didn't know it had failed on other patches too. I thought it's only with my patch.<br></div>Can this be marked as a bad test in that case?<br><div><br></div></div>-Krutika<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Poornima Gurusiddaiah <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pgurusid@redhat.com" target="_blank">pgurusid@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt;color:#000000"><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Are you able consistently reproduce this on your local system as well? If so can you share the system?<br></div><div>I see that it has failed for many other patches as well. <a href="http://fstat.gluster.org/weeks/1/failure/34" target="_blank">http://fstat.gluster.org/weeks/1/failure/34</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,<br></div><div>Poornima<br></div><hr id="m_7178696903598710636zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010ff;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><b>From: </b>"Krutika Dhananjay" <<a href="mailto:kdhananj@redhat.com" target="_blank">kdhananj@redhat.com</a>><br><b>To: </b>"Poornima Gurusiddaiah" <<a href="mailto:pgurusid@redhat.com" target="_blank">pgurusid@redhat.com</a>>, "Soumya Koduri" <<a href="mailto:skoduri@redhat.com" target="_blank">skoduri@redhat.com</a>><br><b>Cc: </b>"Pranith Karampuri" <<a href="mailto:pkarampu@redhat.com" target="_blank">pkarampu@redhat.com</a>><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:47:57 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Regarding a consistent gfapi .t failure<div><div class="h5"><br><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi,<br><div><br></div></div>The test tests/basic/gfapi/bug1291259.t seems to be failing consistently on my 3.9 backport <a href="http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16046/" target="_blank">http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16046/</a><br><div><br></div></div>The patch itself makes changes only in compound fops, so it is unlikely that the failure is caused by the patch itself.<br><div><br></div></div>Here's a sample failure run: <a href="https://build.gluster.org/job/centos6-regression/2134/console" target="_blank">https://build.gluster.org/job/centos6-regression/2134/console</a><br><div><br></div></div>I ran the test on my laptop and it passes consistently.<br></div>I ran the test on a borrowed centos slave and it passes there as well.<br></div>I looked at the logfile bug1291259.log from the archived build failure logs<br></div>but there are no failures.<br><div><br></div></div>If you have any ideas on how to proceed further, could you please suggest the same?<br><div><br></div></div>-Krutika<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div></body></html>