On 06/18/2014 10:49 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.
http://review.gluster.org/8117 fixes the rest.
Pranith
Pranith
If no one has any objections I will send out a patch tomorrow for this.
Pranith
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
