Re: [blfs-dev] About LVM test hanging
Em 26-10-2015 18:11, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
> As noted in ticket #6931, one test (test/shell/lvcreate-large-raid.sh) hangs
> forever and may even trash the system, which then needs a hard reboot.
>
> I've found the explanation, but really upstream is too "fedora-centric" (see
> below why). In file test/lib/aux, there is this function (look at the 4 line
> long comment):
>
> have_raid() {
> test "$RAID" = shared -o "$RAID" = internal || {
> echo "Raid is not built-in." >&2
> return 1;
> }
> target_at_least dm-raid "$@"
>
> # some kernels have broken mdraid bitmaps, don't use them!
> # may oops kernel, we know for sure all FC24 are currently broken
> # in general any 4.1, 4.2 is likely useless unless patched
> # hopefully 4.3 will be patched
> case "$(uname -r)" in
> 4.[123].*fc24*) return 1 ;;
> esac
> ---
> The comment shows that mdraid is broken in kernels version 4.1 and 4.2, but
> then, only fc24 kernels lead to non zero exit! Note that according to the
> comment, any test using raid could be hanging too. I've only observed that for
> one test.
>
> Anyway, I tried linux-4.0.9 and linux-4.3-rc7, and the test passes on both.
> Looks like 4.3 has been patched.
> I'll change the book to warn against versions 4.1 and 4.2 of the kernel (in
> both LVM and mdadm).
Yes, good change for all users end developers.
And I left one comment in the ticket.
Thanks again for your deep investigation about these so problematic checks.
--
[]s,
Fernando, aka SÃsifo
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] About LVM test hanging
On 27/10/2015 15:45, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 26-10-2015 18:11, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
>> As noted in ticket #6931, one test (test/shell/lvcreate-large-raid.sh) hangs
>> forever and may even trash the system, which then needs a hard reboot.
>>
>> I've found the explanation, but really upstream is too "fedora-centric" (see
>> below why). In file test/lib/aux, there is this function (look at the 4 line
>> long comment):
>>
>> have_raid() {
>> test "$RAID" = shared -o "$RAID" = internal || {
>> echo "Raid is not built-in." >&2
>> return 1;
>> }
>> target_at_least dm-raid "$@"
>>
>> # some kernels have broken mdraid bitmaps, don't use them!
>> # may oops kernel, we know for sure all FC24 are currently broken
>> # in general any 4.1, 4.2 is likely useless unless patched
>> # hopefully 4.3 will be patched
>> case "$(uname -r)" in
>> 4.[123].*fc24*) return 1 ;;
>> esac
>> ---
>> The comment shows that mdraid is broken in kernels version 4.1 and 4.2, but
>> then, only fc24 kernels lead to non zero exit! Note that according to the
>> comment, any test using raid could be hanging too. I've only observed that
>> for
>> one test.
>>
>> Anyway, I tried linux-4.0.9 and linux-4.3-rc7, and the test passes on both.
>> Looks like 4.3 has been patched.
>> I'll change the book to warn against versions 4.1 and 4.2 of the kernel (in
>> both LVM and mdadm).
>
> Yes, good change for all users end developers.
>
> And I left one comment in the ticket.
>
> Thanks again for your deep investigation about these so problematic checks.
>
>
I've a question. I'd like to put the warning in an admonition, but I do not
know whether I should use "note", "caution", "warning", or something else. I'd
go for caution but maybe one of you knows better.
BTW, I tried linux-4.2.5 today, and it is patched too.
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] About LVM test hanging
Pierre Labastie wrote: I've a question. I'd like to put the warning in an admonition, but I do not know whether I should use "note", "caution", "warning", or something else. I'd go for caution but maybe one of you knows better. A warning or caution would be if you could damage your system. A note would be appropriate here since the hanging test can just be killed. BTW, I tried linux-4.2.5 today, and it is patched too. Good. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] About LVM test hanging
On 27/10/2015 22:03, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Pierre Labastie wrote: > >> I've a question. I'd like to put the warning in an admonition, but I do not >> know whether I should use "note", "caution", "warning", or something else. >> I'd >> go for caution but maybe one of you knows better. > > A warning or caution would be if you could damage your system. A note would > be appropriate here since the hanging test can just be killed. Hmm, not sure it is really "damage", but I had to hard reboot several times... Anyway, will do a note, thanks. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] About LVM test hanging
On 27/10/2015 22:09, Pierre Labastie wrote: > On 27/10/2015 22:03, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Pierre Labastie wrote: >> >>> I've a question. I'd like to put the warning in an admonition, but I do not >>> know whether I should use "note", "caution", "warning", or something else. >>> I'd >>> go for caution but maybe one of you knows better. >> >> A warning or caution would be if you could damage your system. A note would >> be appropriate here since the hanging test can just be killed. > > Hmm, not sure it is really "damage", but I had to hard reboot several times... > > Anyway, will do a note, thanks. > > Pierre > Done at r16572. Not finished with that yet. I added a comment to the ticket too, because I am not sure what Fernando has in mind. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
