Closed #494 via 8a051e3a96224ab3cb2a4b0c7999aeff7a572ef5.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#event-1449511613
--
openzfs-develop
@gwr While I tend to agree with you, I'd like to push this forward and get it
landed as-is; since it's been lingering in the current state for a while. I'm
not opposed to making the changes you suggest in a follow up patch, though.
Are you OK with that? I'm going to open the RTI as the tests hav
That said, I hate to hold things up. If you think the (rather limited) cred
implementation is generic enough, at least for today's consumers, I guess it's
OK for this to go ahead. It does mean that if and when a consumer comes along
that needs real credentials (i.e. NFS?) we'll need to change
As we're sort of "promoting" libfakekernel to more wide-spread use, I'd really
rather not have it include things that are rather SMB-specific. I see the
current cred hacking there as rather SMB-specific.
Sorry I haven't had time to offer changes to take that out, though I don't
think it should
I'm planning to update this to the latest master, and open the RTI after it
passes the normal regression tests.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-3613801
Gordon had some concerns about the cred stuff but I'm not so sure. What I
would like to do - if he's happy - is go ahead and revisit that in a separate
change.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github
@andy-js what are the next steps for this? besides code reviews, is there
anything left to be done here?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-356406403
@gwr when you have time, can you give the latest revision another look?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-351145955
--
gwr commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+/*
I know, but I'm starting to think that was a mistake.
In general, I'd rather "promote" things into libfakekernel only after we're
fairly sure they're generic enough to satisfy the needs of all consumers.
That's not at all obvious to me
andy-js commented on this pull request.
> @@ -52,6 +53,34 @@ crgetuid(const cred_t *cr)
return (0);
}
+/*ARGSUSED*/
If we could add the missing functionality and make all consumers happy I'd
rather do that.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply
andy-js commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+/*
I don't think so. I don't see these functions defined there, anyway. And
besides, there's already some cred stuff in libfakekernel.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email direct
andy-js commented on this pull request.
> @@ -65,6 +67,29 @@ kmem_zalloc(size_t size, int kmflags)
return (umem_zalloc(size, kmem2umem_flags(kmflags)));
}
+/*
Will do.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on Gi
andy-js commented on this pull request.
> + *
+ * CDDL HEADER END
+ */
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2005, 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 2012, 2015 by Delphix. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 2013, Joyent, Inc. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright 2017
andy-js commented on this pull request.
> @@ -69,6 +117,32 @@ delay(clock_t ticks)
(void) poll(0, 0, msec);
}
+int
+issig(int why)
+{
+ return (0);
+}
+
+/* ARGSUSED */
Sure. This sounds good to me.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply t
andy-js commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+/*
Some of the print functions have different prototypes (kernel versions are
void, user space versions return number of characters printed) and this causes
the compiler to generate an error.
--
You are receiving this because you a
gwr commented on this pull request.
The rest looks reasonable, but let's chat about what to keep in libfakekernel
vs. consumers.
> + *
+ * CDDL HEADER END
+ */
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2005, 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 2012, 2015 by Delphix. All rights
The lint and test errors have now been fixed. If I could get another review or
two that'd be great.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-348701614
Jenkins is being difficult, sorry for the trouble. I'll restart this build
later today.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-348535319
Thanks for your help. I think I have pushed a fix, but CI has failed again
complaining about not being able to find the workspace.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#
That zloop failure looks similar to what happened the previous run that also
failed zloop; see
[here](http://jenkins.open-zfs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/openzfs%2Fopenzfs/detail/PR-494/6/pipeline/211).
There _might_ be some information that can be gathered from the zloop files,
which can be
Looks like zloop was killed for some reason. In the log I see "Timeout has
been exceeded
Finished: ABORTED"
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-348039255
sebroy approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#pullrequestreview-79962267
--
openzfs-developer
Archiv
I'll restart the jenkins process, and then restart this build; that should
allow this build to go through.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-347889243
--
Looks like the build failure was unrelated to my changes. I see:
"could not determine the workspace used to perform the build"
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issue
The "zettabot go" comments no longer do anything. It will rebuild when it
detects the PR code has changed; i.e. the force push you just made will kick
off a new run automatically.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on Git
@zettabot go
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-347562830
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
https://openzfs.topicbox.
Thanks. I think I see what's going on.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-347561219
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
Yes; the "artifacts" section of the test has that data. See
[here](http://jenkins.open-zfs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/openzfs%2Fopenzfs/detail/PR-494/6/artifacts).
Specifically, you'll want to download the
[run-zfs-test-results.tar.xz](http://jenkins.open-zfs.org/job/openzfs/job/openzfs/job/
Looks like some of the import tests failed. I'm not sure why because they PASS
on my VM.
Is there any way I can get a look at those result files?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/o
Sorry, yes, there some some issue with Jenkins; I've restarted the build.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-345788241
@andy-js Click the details near the "continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-head —
This commit cannot be built". Looks like it's not your code problem, and
rather CI one -- try force pushing the commit so that the build would be
restarted.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to th
Where can I see what caused the build failure?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/494#issuecomment-345459605
--
openzfs-developer
Ar
32 matches
Mail list logo
