start_tmux.sh: remove double-checking for existing shm segments

[ehellbar]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION RELEASES:
To request your PR to be included in production software, please add the corresponding labels called "async-" to your PR. Add the labels directly (if you have the permissions) or add a comment of the form (note that labels are separated by a ",")

+async-label <label1>, <label2>, !<label3> ...

This will add <label1> and <label2> and removes <label3>.

The following labels are available
async-2023-pbpb-apass4
async-2023-pp-apass4
async-2024-pp-apass1
async-2022-pp-apass7
async-2024-pp-cpass0
async-2024-PbPb-apass1
async-2024-ppRef-apass1
async-2024-PbPb-apass2
async-2023-PbPb-apass5

[ehellbar]

the shm segment check is already done here

AliceO2/prodtests/full-system-test/start_tmux.sh

Line 130 in fca3012

if [[ -z $SHM_MANAGER_SHMID ]]; then

, taking into account the possibility of segments from the shm-manager

[davidrohr]

This was added by @ChSonnabend , since he said the test failed for him due to existing files.
Actually I did not check back then, even though I supposed that I had added such a check further below, which indeed we have in there.
@ChSonnabend : Could you comment how it failed for you, and why my check below does not work:

AliceO2/prodtests/full-system-test/start_tmux.sh

Line 140 in 4afa537

echo "FMQ SHM files left which cannot be deleted, please clean up!"

[ChSonnabend]

This was added by @ChSonnabend , since he said the test failed for him due to existing files. Actually I did not check back then, even though I supposed that I had added such a check further below, which indeed we have in there. @ChSonnabend : Could you comment how it failed for you, and why my check below does not work:

AliceO2/prodtests/full-system-test/start_tmux.sh

Line 140 in 4afa537

echo "FMQ SHM files left which cannot be deleted, please clean up!"

Not sure anymore. I remember having some issues otherwise I wouldn't have added it. Fine for me if we comment it out and see if the issue reappears

[ehellbar]

for me, the original check works. Keep in mind that you will not see the existing shm segments when you are in a slurm shell, so when running in a slurm shell and checking for existing segments in a ssh shell, it might lead to wrong conclusions.

[ChSonnabend]

for me, the original check works. Keep in mind that you will not see the existing shm segments when you are in a slurm shell, so when running in a slurm shell and checking for existing segments in a ssh shell, it might lead to wrong conclusions.

Yes that's clear. Ok if the old check works then you can remove my check.