Re: [developer] Recent NVMe changes break testing on a VMware guest?

[Dan McDonald <danmcd@mnx.io>]

On Jul 11, 2024, at 12:40 PM, Andy Fiddaman <andy@omnios.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024, Dan McDonald wrote:
> 
>> Reproducible in both 32- and 64-bit BTW:
>> 
>> [root@coal /tmp/test]# /opt/nvme-tests/tests/unit/firmware.32 >& /tmp/32
>> [root@coal /tmp/test]# /opt/nvme-tests/tests/unit/firmware.64 >& /tmp/64
>> [root@coal /tmp/test]# diff /tmp/{32,64}
>> 56,57c56,57
>> < TEST PASSED: valid ffirmware.32: TEST FAILED: invalid fw load numd 8k gran (3): found wrong return value NVME_FIELD_ERR_OK (0), expected NVME_FIELD_ERR_BAD_VALUE (3)
>> < firmware.32: TEST FAILED: invalid fw load numd 8k gran (4): found wrong return value NVME_FIELD_ERR_OK (0), expected NVME_FIELD_ERR_BAD_VALUE (3)
>> ---
>>> TEST PASSED: valid ffirmware.64: TEST FAILED: invalid fw load numd 8k gran (3): found wrong return value NVME_FIELD_ERR_OK (0), expected NVME_FIELD_ERR_BAD_VALUE (3)
>>> firmware.64: TEST FAILED: invalid fw load numd 8k gran (4): found wrong return value NVME_FIELD_ERR_OK (0), expected NVME_FIELD_ERR_BAD_VALUE (3)
>> [root@coal /tmp/test]#
> 
> This is fallout from
> 
>        16633 nvme firmware updates cannot enforce update
> 
> That change relaxed the restrictions on the allowed firmware chunk size so that
> it no-longer needed to confirm to the firmware upgrade granularity, and as a
> result the tests are seeing NVME_FIELD_ERR_OK where they expect a bad
> value error. I will file a followup and fix it, sorry about that.

No apologies needed.  Your explanation is more than enough to allow me to not rebuild this week's SmartOS.

Thanks,
Dan