* jewel: bad rados_buffer_free from librados python bindings
@ 2016-10-20 8:35 Loic Dachary
2016-10-20 10:33 ` Loic Dachary
2016-10-20 13:52 ` Sage Weil
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Loic Dachary @ 2016-10-20 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sage Weil; +Cc: Ceph Development
H Sage,
It looks like http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 surfaced in jewel (failed twice in a row at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-19). It did not occur before, therefore I suspect it's a side effect of some of the commits in the jewel backports integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-16 ), but I don't see which commit in that branch could have caused that kind of misbehavior.
Since you marked http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 as Resolved with no commits attached, I suppose it means it went away for some reason. Could you please confirm ?
Cheers
--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: jewel: bad rados_buffer_free from librados python bindings
2016-10-20 8:35 jewel: bad rados_buffer_free from librados python bindings Loic Dachary
@ 2016-10-20 10:33 ` Loic Dachary
2016-10-20 13:52 ` Sage Weil
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Loic Dachary @ 2016-10-20 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sage Weil; +Cc: Ceph Development
It passed 10 times in a row on the same branch (http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2016-10-20_09:32:24-rados-jewel-backports-distro-basic-smithi/). I guess it's a rare transient error and we were unlucky enough to hit it twice in a row.
On 20/10/2016 10:35, Loic Dachary wrote:
> H Sage,
>
> It looks like http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 surfaced in jewel (failed twice in a row at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-19). It did not occur before, therefore I suspect it's a side effect of some of the commits in the jewel backports integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-16 ), but I don't see which commit in that branch could have caused that kind of misbehavior.
>
> Since you marked http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 as Resolved with no commits attached, I suppose it means it went away for some reason. Could you please confirm ?
>
> Cheers
>
--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: jewel: bad rados_buffer_free from librados python bindings
2016-10-20 8:35 jewel: bad rados_buffer_free from librados python bindings Loic Dachary
2016-10-20 10:33 ` Loic Dachary
@ 2016-10-20 13:52 ` Sage Weil
2016-10-24 15:57 ` Josh Durgin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sage Weil @ 2016-10-20 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Loic Dachary; +Cc: Ceph Development
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Loic Dachary wrote:
> H Sage,
>
> It looks like http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 surfaced in jewel (failed twice in a row at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-19). It did not occur before, therefore I suspect it's a side effect of some of the commits in the jewel backports integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-16 ), but I don't see which commit in that branch could have caused that kind of misbehavior.
>
> Since you marked http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 as Resolved with no commits attached, I suppose it means it went away for some reason. Could you please confirm ?
Hmm, unfortunately I don't remember working on this one. My guess is it
came up during a bug scrub discussion and that's when it got closed.
Hopefully Kefu or Josh remember?
sage
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: jewel: bad rados_buffer_free from librados python bindings
2016-10-20 13:52 ` Sage Weil
@ 2016-10-24 15:57 ` Josh Durgin
2016-10-24 16:54 ` kefu chai
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Josh Durgin @ 2016-10-24 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sage Weil, Loic Dachary; +Cc: Ceph Development
On 10/20/2016 06:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> H Sage,
>>
>> It looks like http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 surfaced in jewel (failed twice in a row at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-19). It did not occur before, therefore I suspect it's a side effect of some of the commits in the jewel backports integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-16 ), but I don't see which commit in that branch could have caused that kind of misbehavior.
>>
>> Since you marked http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 as Resolved with no commits attached, I suppose it means it went away for some reason. Could you please confirm ?
>
> Hmm, unfortunately I don't remember working on this one. My guess is it
> came up during a bug scrub discussion and that's when it got closed.
> Hopefully Kefu or Josh remember?
I don't think I've seen that particular bug before, so hopefully Kefu
remembers it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: jewel: bad rados_buffer_free from librados python bindings
2016-10-24 15:57 ` Josh Durgin
@ 2016-10-24 16:54 ` kefu chai
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: kefu chai @ 2016-10-24 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Durgin; +Cc: Sage Weil, Loic Dachary, Ceph Development
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Josh Durgin <jdurgin@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 06:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>>
>>> H Sage,
>>>
>>> It looks like http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 surfaced in jewel
>>> (failed twice in a row at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-19). It
>>> did not occur before, therefore I suspect it's a side effect of some of the
>>> commits in the jewel backports integration branch (
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-16 ), but I don't see which commit
>>> in that branch could have caused that kind of misbehavior.
>>>
>>> Since you marked http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15454 as Resolved with no
>>> commits attached, I suppose it means it went away for some reason. Could you
>>> please confirm ?
>>
>>
>> Hmm, unfortunately I don't remember working on this one. My guess is it
>> came up during a bug scrub discussion and that's when it got closed.
>> Hopefully Kefu or Josh remember?
>
>
> I don't think I've seen that particular bug before, so hopefully Kefu
> remembers it.
neither do i remember this, i investigated it a little bit. but had no
clues then. no idea why we closed it.
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Regards
Kefu Chai
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-24 16:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-10-20 8:35 jewel: bad rados_buffer_free from librados python bindings Loic Dachary
2016-10-20 10:33 ` Loic Dachary
2016-10-20 13:52 ` Sage Weil
2016-10-24 15:57 ` Josh Durgin
2016-10-24 16:54 ` kefu chai
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.