Enhance PFC watchdog log analyzer to check debug information on a per-vendor basis#10305
Conversation
|
The pre-commit check detected issues in the files touched by this pull request. Detailed pre-commit check results: To run the pre-commit checks locally, you can follow below steps:
|
|
The pre-commit check detected issues in the files touched by this pull request. Detailed pre-commit check results: To run the pre-commit checks locally, you can follow below steps:
|
8e5623a to
a31d302
Compare
1. Check diagnosis information in PFC watchdog detection message on a per-vendor basis 2. Move expected log message to a common file Change-Id: Ic6cb53d989fa49ed56f614553ce6d9f2ac5b8eda Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]>
a31d302 to
4b36c0d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]> Change-Id: I4ee12dfa32247a89b725bb1e7df68727acf25413
…-vendor basis (sonic-net#10305) * Enhance PFC watchdog debug information checking 1. Check diagnosis information in PFC watchdog detection message on a per-vendor basis 2. Move expected log message to a common file
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202305: #10599 |
…-vendor basis (#10305) * Enhance PFC watchdog debug information checking 1. Check diagnosis information in PFC watchdog detection message on a per-vendor basis 2. Move expected log message to a common file
Description of PR
Summary:
Enhance PFC watchdog diagnosis information checking.
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
Recently, more diagnosis information has been introduced when PFC watchdog is triggered for some vendors.
This is to verify whether the diagnosis information is reported in the syslog.
How did you do it?
How did you verify/test it?
Run regression test PFC watchdog
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation