Skip to content

[action] [PR:10305] Enhance PFC watchdog log analyzer to check debug information on a per-vendor basis#10599

Merged
mssonicbld merged 1 commit intosonic-net:202305from
mssonicbld:cherry/202305/10305
Nov 2, 2023
Merged

[action] [PR:10305] Enhance PFC watchdog log analyzer to check debug information on a per-vendor basis#10599
mssonicbld merged 1 commit intosonic-net:202305from
mssonicbld:cherry/202305/10305

Conversation

@mssonicbld
Copy link
Collaborator

Description of PR

Summary:
Enhance PFC watchdog diagnosis information checking.

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
  • Test case(new/improvement)

Back port request

  • 201911
  • 202012
  • 202205

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?

  1. Check diagnosis information in PFC watchdog detection message on a per-vendor basis
  2. Move the expected log message pattern to a common file
  3. In warm reboot scenario, the PFC watchdog can be reported based on APPL_DB content instead of counters. In this case, no additional information can be provided. So, do not check diagnosis information in this case.
  4. Do not check it on the branches that it is not supported, like 202211.

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

…-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
@mssonicbld
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Original PR: #10305

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants