Good. I think there were some more in another batch of mail showing
the same symptoms, so we seem to be converging on a smaller set of
tests that remain as an issue.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Zhang, Sonic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find the cause of the error out put of case 154,187 and 189.
> The test file is in DOS format. After I convert it to Unix format, I
> get the correct results.
>
> Thanks
>
> Sonic Zhang
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2003?1?6? 19:01
> To: Zhang, Sonic
> Cc: PCP (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: New results for cases 154,187,189 and 232
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Zhang, Sonic wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > See the attachments. It seems there are some errors in your revised
> > cases. Please check.
>
> 154
> This makes no sense to me, it works just fine here ... the CR
> stuff looks like the file got mangled in transit or as you
> unpacked it ... I'd need to see the output from:
>
> $ wc 154
> $ sh -x 154
>
> 187
> Ditto
>
> 189
> Ditto
>
> I've attached versions of 154, 187 and 189 again in case it is an e-mail
> transmission problem.
>
> > I also attach the 232.nine file, which is the output of command
> > "./sudo src-oss/torture_indom -Dall nfs.server.reqs" in your suggestion
> for
> > case 232.
>
> Hmm ... need to look at this some more, but it seems to be a /proc
> parsing problem. Can you send me the output from
>
> $ cat /proc/net/rpc/nfsd
>
> Mine looks like ...
>
> rc 0 0 0
> fh 0 0 0 0 0
> io 0 0
> th 8 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
> ra 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> net 0 0 0 0
> rpc 0 0 0 0 0
> proc2 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> proc3 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>
> I know that for some versions of Linux the proc2 line is not correct,
> and you may be hitting this.
>
> > We won't test any cisco specific features, so we won't concern case
> > 159 any more.
>
> OK.
>
|