Re: [SPDK] Chandler Build Pool Test Failures

-----Original Messages----- From: wuzhouhui <wuzhouhui14(a)mails.ucas.ac.cn&gt; Sent Time: 2018-12-07 09:05:03 (Friday) To: "storage performance development kit" <spdk(a)lists.01.org&gt; Cc: Subject: [CASS SPAM]Re: [SPDK] [CASS SPAM] Chandler Build Pool Test Failures Hi, I read the IRC log and found that patch https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/spdk/spdk/+/436368 (which contained in series https://review.gerrithub.io/c/spdk/spdk/+/435937/6) fixes Chandler Build Pool Test failures, but I cannot see any diff in this patch, why? Thanks > -----Original Messages----- > From: "Howell, Seth" <seth.howell(a)intel.com&gt; > Sent Time: 2018-12-07 00:51:22 (Friday) > To: "Storage Performance Development Kit" <spdk(a)lists.01.org&gt; > Cc: > Subject: [CASS SPAM][SPDK] Chandler Build Pool Test Failures > > Hi all, > > There has been a rash of failures on the test pool starting last night. I was able to root cause the failures to a point in the NVMe-oF shutdown tests. The main substance of the failure is that QAT and the DPDK framework don't always play well with secondary dpdk processes. In the interest of avoiding these failures on future builds, please rebase your changes on the following patch series which includes the fix of not running bdevperf as a secondary process in the NVMe-oF shutdown tests. > https://review.gerrithub.io/c/spdk/spdk/+/435937/6 > > Thanks, > > Seth Howell > _______________________________________________ > SPDK mailing list > SPDK(a)lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk _______________________________________________ SPDK mailing list SPDK(a)lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk