pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] qa/767 failing most places

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] qa/767 failing most places
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:52:03 -0500 (EST)
Cc: PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <000d01d04fc9$8375ca60$8a615f20$@internode.on.net>
References: <54EB8B14.7070605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1281616127.13879459.1424735391627.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <000d01d04fc9$8375ca60$8a615f20$@internode.on.net>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHch2CjyImo8TZUu0YU/mQFSoNSUwJAQuapnNSBxZAFuvc4bA==
Thread-topic: qa/767 failing most places

----- Original Message -----
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nathan Scott [mailto:nathans@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2015 10:50 AM
> > ....   Ohhhhh... part of it is
> > going to be a lack of kernel support for setns(2) - I'll need to get some
> > way
> > to detect that built into the QA test.
> 
> Check qa 377 or 480 for a (hacky) way to check in a qa script HAVE_SOMETHING
> that maybe set by configure during the build.
> 

Taa.  For this one, I think we can make the existing pmcd.feature.containers
metric export zero if the needed kernel features were not present/found too,
and then make the common.check _check_containers() routine use that.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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