pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Regression in qa/628

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Regression in qa/628
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 05:29:48 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pcp <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1867879926.7608473.1417393457721.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1224656795.6945862.1417136806064.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <8149026.6994945.1417145442845.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <6c1905a6-237d-4181-b2f5-d436d42f66b8.maildroid@localhost> <1867879926.7608473.1417393457721.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: HoijUWUE+8MitLE7XdnluiWJFWZSIuVFsMO3
Thread-topic: Regression in qa/628
Hi,

Just a quick update since I've been distracted by several other
things in the last day or so...

----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I would be surprised if my change caused this, unless you have an old
> > simple
> > pmda running (the binary would not match the library).  More likely to be a
> > latent problem in the simple pmda that this change has exposed.
> 
> I'm wondering if its the former issue - I'll do more tests to confirm, but I
> suspect some of the indeterminism I saw might be explained by rebuilding the
> PMDA in-between some runs (and thereafter it was fine).
> 
> When I revert the change, the problem is definitely not reproducible anymore,
> so will go with that for now & put it back in dev shortly (post-release).

I've reverted the revert in dev, but the above statements are all still true -
not really understanding how, but some kind of ABI-breaking oddity seems to be
in play here.  There's a comment in the pmda libdefs.h about how that structure
is used as "private per PMDA data when multiple DSO PMDAs are in use" - do you
know the background to that?  That is our situation here, so that aspect might
be worth a deeper look.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>