Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #20134

closed

test_rados.TestIoctx.test_aio_read AssertionError: 5 != 2

Added by Sage Weil almost 7 years ago. Updated almost 7 years ago.

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
-
% Done:

0%

Source:
Tags:
Backport:
Regression:
No
Severity:
3 - minor
Reviewed:
Affected Versions:
ceph-qa-suite:
Component(RADOS):
Pull request ID:
Crash signature (v1):
Crash signature (v2):

Description

<Pre>
2017-06-01T22:57:09.649 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr:======================================================================
2017-06-01T22:57:09.653 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr:FAIL: test_rados.TestIoctx.test_aio_read
2017-06-01T22:57:09.656 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr:----------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-06-01T22:57:09.659 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr:Traceback (most recent call last):
2017-06-01T22:57:09.668 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr: File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/case.py", line 197, in runTest
2017-06-01T22:57:09.672 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr: self.test(*self.arg)
2017-06-01T22:57:09.675 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr: File "/home/ubuntu/cephtest/clone.client.0/src/test/pybind/test_rados.py", line 761, in test_aio_read
2017-06-01T22:57:09.678 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr: eq(sys.getrefcount(comp), 2)
2017-06-01T22:57:09.681 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr:AssertionError: 5 != 2
2017-06-01T22:57:09.684 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr:
2017-06-01T22:57:09.687 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.smithi084.stderr:----------------------------------------------------------------------

/a/sage-2017-06-01_21:44:07-rados-wip-sage-testing---basic-smithi/1253532

Actions #1

Updated by Greg Farnum almost 7 years ago

  • Project changed from Ceph to RADOS
  • Status changed from New to Rejected
  • Priority changed from Urgent to Normal

5 is EIO. Thats not an error code we produce, but it's a possibility until David's stuff preventing us from returning EIO is done. If it pops up again in a context where we know we didn't get errors from the FS, we can re-open.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF