On 18/06/2014, at 6:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > On 06/16/2014 09:08 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: >> >> On 06/16/2014 09:00 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote: >>>> I see that most of the tests are doing umount and these may fail >>>> sometimes because of EBUSY etc. I am wondering if we should change all >>>> of them to umount -l. >>>> Let me know if you foresee any problems. >>> I think I'd try "umount -f" first. Using -l too much can cause an >>> accumulation of zombie mounts. When I'm hacking around on my own, I >>> sometimes have to do "umount -f" twice but that's always sufficient. >> Cool, I will do some kind of EXPECT_WITHIN with umount -f may be 5 times just to be on the safer side. > I submitted http://review.gluster.com/8104 for one of the tests as it is failing frequently. Will do the next round later. Would either of you have time to 2nd review this: http://review.gluster.com/8104 It's for fixing the bug-859581.t spurious failure. You both had Gerrit CR's that failed yesterday due to this. ;) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org An open source, distributed file system scaling to several petabytes, and handling thousands of clients. My personal twitter: twitter.com/realjustinclift _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
