Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

modules/kvs: Cleanup content_load_completion() #1079

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 25, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@chu11
Copy link
Contributor

chu11 commented May 24, 2017

Remove unnecessary cache_entry_create() call, as it is impossible
to reach.

modules/kvs: Cleanup content_load_completion()
Remove unnecessary cache_entry_create() call, as it is impossible
to reach.
@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

coveralls commented May 24, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 78.188% when pulling e99fe4d on chu11:kvscleanup6 into e6560ce on flux-framework:master.

@chu11

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

chu11 commented May 24, 2017

Hmmm, on one travis build

PASS: t1006-apidisconnect.t 1 - kvs watcher gets disconnected on client exit
PASS: t1006-apidisconnect.t 2 - multi-node kvs watcher gets disconnected on client exit
ERROR: t1006-apidisconnect.t - exited with status 137 (terminated by signal 9?)

both tests pass, but get an error, presumably when t1006 is torn down. Wonder if there is a corner case I'm not seeing that this code cleanup is bad.

@chu11

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

chu11 commented May 25, 2017

Hmm, sort of perplexed by this. Both tests in t1006-apidisconnect.t pass. So the error appears to come outside of those tests. Presumably on teardown of the tests. But there's nothing in sharness or tap that appears to kill anything (such as if its hung). So I have no idea where the signal 9 (SIGKILL) came from.

@garlick

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

garlick commented May 25, 2017

flux-start will send a SIGKILL (9) to brokers that fail to terminate within 2s after the first broker terminates. Not sure why its happening here but that's the likely source of the signal.

@chu11

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

chu11 commented May 25, 2017

@garlick Ahh, I didn't think of the kill coming from within flux. The question is if this was a racy/bug hang or unlucky/slow scheduling. I'm thinking the latter, as if my patch was a real bug it would have asserted with SIGABRT and that would have been returned instead SIGKILL. Lets see if travis hits it regularly. Restarting.

@chu11

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

chu11 commented May 25, 2017

api-disconnect didn't appear this time. But did hit #1063.

FAIL: t2008-althash.t 5 - Attempt to start instance with invalid hash fails hard

Lets give travis another shot at a perfect run.

@codecov-io

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

codecov-io commented May 25, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #1079 into master will increase coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1079      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.92%   78.03%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         150      150              
  Lines       25965    25963       -2     
==========================================
+ Hits        20233    20261      +28     
+ Misses       5732     5702      -30
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/modules/kvs/kvs.c 79.97% <100%> (+0.2%) ⬆️
src/bindings/lua/flux-lua.c 81.62% <0%> (+0.09%) ⬆️
src/broker/broker.c 72.68% <0%> (+0.09%) ⬆️
src/modules/kvs/libkvs.c 75.49% <0%> (+0.11%) ⬆️
src/broker/overlay.c 71.67% <0%> (+0.34%) ⬆️
src/common/libflux/message.c 81.92% <0%> (+0.35%) ⬆️
src/common/libutil/veb.c 98.87% <0%> (+0.56%) ⬆️
src/common/libflux/handle.c 84.98% <0%> (+0.56%) ⬆️
src/common/libutil/dirwalk.c 94.81% <0%> (+0.74%) ⬆️
src/common/libflux/rpc.c 93.09% <0%> (+1.09%) ⬆️
... and 3 more
@garlick

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

garlick commented May 25, 2017

This seems good, and hard to imagine how it could be linked to the spurious travis problems. Merging.

@garlick garlick merged commit fefa109 into flux-framework:master May 25, 2017

4 checks passed

codecov/patch 100% of diff hit (target 77.92%)
Details
codecov/project 78.03% (+0.11%) compared to e6560ce
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 78.188%
Details

@grondo grondo referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2017

Closed

0.8.0 Release #1160

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.