Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:41:57 -0800 From: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r343543 - head/sbin/bectl/tests Message-ID: <89DD44B2-1A74-4FD4-9B66-26D924005892@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1BE1B458-7AEA-412F-AD52-1E5554080422@gmail.com> References: <201901290408.x0T48oJQ080243@repo.freebsd.org> <CACNAnaEmeQLwB%2Ba8KWyqB3GFWDn7on4gYtDrH7i5G6mj3zfSJw@mail.gmail.com> <674E01AB-49C7-4B40-B2FD-6EB4AFEAB1FD@gmail.com> <CACNAnaH5Qnfzenkwe1obM0DOfUZbvTjWg79o7FAobPrT6WYcaA@mail.gmail.com> <5687EE07-74FB-4233-B51D-C8948641E8CB@gmail.com> <CACNAnaG8oL1hODGNoZZ3fGpqQFsD1DVpqNDCcN7cBr%2Bm-rsf-A@mail.gmail.com> <1BE1B458-7AEA-412F-AD52-1E5554080422@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> = wrote: =E2=80=A6 >> Right- this is the part that makes sense to me. =3D) The 'default2' = BE >> is clearly a leftover from a previous test, but it should've been >> unmounted in the process and the zpool cleaned up. >>=20 >> What's not clear is how the cleanup routine is failing; the `zpool = get >> health` shouldn't have any reason to fail (though I can't test it >> here, apparently =3D() and `zpool destroy -f` should've unmounted = this >> BE even if that hadn't happened throughout the course of the test, = but >> the failure remains (even if probably incorrectly fixed) following = the >> above commit. >>=20 >> Setting the zpool name globally with a suffix unique to this test >> would likely be a great idea -- I think there's something else going >> on as well, though. >=20 > My comment about the zpool name being defined locally to tests as = opposed is globally is probably what=E2=80=99s tripping you up. The = cleanup function is not run in the same shell context as the test. I submitted a proposed fix here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D19024 = <https://reviews.freebsd.org/D19024>; . After doing some more thinking, it dawned on me that these tests might = not be running in parallel, which (because they weren=E2=80=99t using = unique names) could be clashing with parallel executing tests. -Enji=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?89DD44B2-1A74-4FD4-9B66-26D924005892>