Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Failed pipeline for nvmeof_getlog_page | wireshark

Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Failed pipeline for nvmeof_getlog_page | wireshark | 3a8e09e

From: "Constantine Gavrilov" <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:40:38 +0200

Ronnie:

Thank you for taking your time to reply. I think you entirely missed my point.

The question was not regarding how to fix but about significance of this build test.

I saw my previous merge requests approved and even merged when this test failed. I then saw it post factum, and voluntarily updated code in next commits.

I also get only occasional reminder about this -- I do not understand why it is not linked to MR, or why MR does not indicate build failure.

You are asking why core developers shall care? Obviously, this additional build test was implemented by the project, not by me, as well as unique compile options for CLNAG-11 that make the build to fail while other compilers succeed. Obviously, the was some purpose and thought in this. I do not think it is documented anywhere, so it was a reasonable question.

I fail to see how this innocuous question can "rub you in a serious way" or rub other "helpful people". You have made it sound very personal and none of my communications were. If you have issues with other communications I would recommend you reply in the context of those threads and not this one.

There is no reason to use a context of a technical question as means of a personal "rub".

Can someone answer my question regarding additional build pipeline please?

--
----------------------------------------
Constantine Gavrilov
Storage Architect
Master Inventor
Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
----------------------------------------

From: ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 03/31/2021 10:41 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Wireshark-dev] Failed pipeline for nvmeof_getlog_page | wireshark | 3a8e09ef
Sent by: "Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

It seems like you already know what is wrong and how to solve this. Why not just change your patch so it does not trigger this compiler error/warning? Maybe the compiler is overly sensitive here? Who knows. Why is this a problem for wireshark ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
It seems like you already know what is wrong and how to solve this.
Why not just change your patch so it does not trigger this compiler error/warning?

Maybe the compiler is overly sensitive here? Who knows.
Why is this a problem for wireshark developers?

Do this:
* fix your code so it does not trigger the warnings. Wireshark developers are not supposed to
keep track of what are false warnings that are bogus or what are real problems.
* if you have a problem with the compiler, bring it up with them. we are not compiler developers or maintainers.
* work on your people skills. You are rubbing people that could help you in seriosly the wrong way.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 5:21 PM Constantine Gavrilov <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have a question regarding for a special form of automatic builds that I do not understand.

Occasionally, I get an email for additional pipeline build that is different from default pipeline linked to the ticket. It is a wider set of compilers and distributions.

Several questions:
1. What is the significance of this and when it is triggered?
2. Why it is not linked to MR (meaning I cannot see this failure in MR)?
3. Shall I fix these failures?
4. How do I know that the issue is fixed, since such builds are not linked to MR?
I have looked at this particular one, and it is a a bug in compiler:

guint64 off =...; /* take from command context, now looking at reply */
if (off < 40)
proto_add_item(...., .... 40-off,.....);

So, the error (in CLANG-11) is (40-off) is 64-bit and passing it as 32-bit parameter "looses high-order bits".

First, the compiler shall see that no loss of value takes place because of the "IF" statement here. Second, since when passing 64-bit value as a 32-bit parameter shall be a compiler error in C language?

I can easily fix this (check the value in saved context, and if it is above possible payload length return, then declare off as 32-bit), but I need to know if CLANG-11 (with draconian compile options) is a MUST to pass.

-
----------------------------------------
Constantine Gavrilov
Storage Architect
Master Inventor
Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
----------------------------------------
----- Forwarded by Constantine Gavrilov/Israel/IBM on 03/31/2021 10:07 AM -----

From: GitLab <gitlab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Date: 03/30/2021 05:37 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Failed pipeline for nvmeof_getlog_page | wireshark | 3a8e09ef
Sent by: gitlab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Pipeline #278885577 has failed! Project Constantine Gavrilov / wireshark Branch nvmeof_getlog_page Commit ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Pipeline #278885577 has failed!

Project

Constantine Gavrilov / wireshark

Branch

nvmeof_getlog_page

Commit

3a8e09ef

NVMe: Get LogPage: Commands Supported and Effects

Commit Author

Constantine Gavrilov

Pipeline #278885577 triggered by

Constantine Gavrilov