Vaibhav Jain <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Dan and Vishal, > > Thanks so much for quick turnaround on this. > > Dan Williams <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:36 AM Verma, Vishal L >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 17:30 +0530, Vaibhav Jain wrote: >>> > commit 107a24ff429f ("ndctl/list: Add firmware activation >>> > enumeration") introduced changes in add_dimm() to enumerate the status >>> > of firmware activation. However a branch added in that commit broke >>> > the probe for non-nfit nvdimms like one provided by papr-scm. This >>> > cause an error reported when listing namespaces like below: >>> > >>> > $ sudo ndctl list >>> > libndctl: add_dimm: nmem0: probe failed: No such device >>> > libndctl: __sysfs_device_parse: nmem0: add_dev() failed >>> > >>> > Do a fix for this by removing the offending branch in the add_dimm() >>> > patch. This continues the flow of add_dimm() probe even if the nfit is >>> > not detected on the associated bus. >>> > >>> > Fixes: 107a24ff429fa("ndctl/list: Add firmware activation enumeration") >>> > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Jain <[email protected]> >>> > --- >>> > ndctl/lib/libndctl.c | 3 --- >>> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> Ah apologies - this snuck in when I reflowed Dan's patches on top of the >>> papr work for v70. > No worries :-) > >>> >>> I expect you'd like a point release with this fix asap? > Yes, that will be great. Thanks > >>> >>> Is there a way for me to incorporate some papr unit tests into my >>> release workflow so I can avoid breaking things like this again? >>> >>> I'll also try to do a better job of pushing things out to the pending >>> branch more frequently so if you're monitoring that branch, hopefully >>> things like this will get caught before a release happens :) > > Fully agree, if that happens we can incorporate it into our CI system to > ensure that such regressions are caught early on before any release is > tagged. > >> >> Would be nice to have something like a papr_test next to nfit_test for >> such regression testing. These kinds of mistakes are really only >> avoidable with regression tests. > Yes Agree, fortunatly Santosh has recently posted an RFC patchset > implementing such tests at [1]. Once that gets merged, can used to > perform regression testing. > > [1] "testing/nvdimm: Add test module for non-nfit platforms" > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvdimm/[email protected]/ >
Thanks Vaibhav to point that out. Dan/Vishal/Ira, If you could provide your comments on the above RFC we could move forward on this. Thanks, Santosh _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
