Don't segfault if parent job doesn't exist#51
Merged
natefoo merged 1 commit intonatefoo:masterfrom Sep 2, 2021
Merged
Conversation
If slurm_load_job() reported that our parent job ID was invalid, return immediately rather than trying to use the (null) job_info struct later in the function.
natefoo
approved these changes
Sep 2, 2021
Owner
natefoo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't use array jobs so I can't really point out whether there's anything subtly wrong here, but I don't see anything obvious, so I'll go ahead and merge. Thanks!
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If slurm_load_job() reported that our parent job ID was invalid, return immediately rather than trying
to use the (null) job_info struct later in the function. (In our testing we see segfaults about 40% of the time when trying to run bulk jobs via DRMAA otherwise.) This may also be the same issue discussed in #27.