From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>
To: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: ext4 xfstests results for 3.8 on Pandaboard ES (ARM)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:47:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130225024733.GA4477@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130224193552.GA2320@wallace>
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 02:35:52PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote:
> * Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > BEGIN TEST: Ext4 4k block w/nodelalloc, no flex_bg, and no extents Thu Feb 21
> > > 15:41:27 EST 2013
> > > Ran: 001 002 005 006 007 011 013 014 015 020 053 062 068 069 070 074 075 076
> > > 077 079 083 088 089 091 100 105 112 113 117 120 123 124 125 126 127 128 129
> > > 130 131 132 133 135 141 169 184 192 193 198 204 207 208 209 210 211 212 215
> > > 219 221 224 225 226 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 239 240 245 246 247 248
> > > 249 257 258 263 269 270 271 272 273 275 277 280 285 289 294
> > > Failures: 125 285
> > > END TEST: Ext4 4k block w/nodelalloc, no flex_bg, and no extents Thu Feb 21
> > > 17:24:32 EST 2013
> > >
> > > Xfstest 285 fails reliably for me on both ARM and x86-64 and only in this test
> > > scenario. I see the same failure on 3.7, so it's not a regression (however,
> > > this failure doesn't appear in Ted's early 3.8-rc results).
> > >
> > > --- 285.out 2013-02-19 15:58:25.110665500 -0500
> > > +++ 285.out.bad 2013-02-21 17:23:45.156519882 -0500
> > > @@ -1 +1,3 @@
> > > QA output created by 285
> > > +seek sanity check failed!
> >
> > This test case is used to test seek data/hole feature. After 3.8 ext4
> > has supported it. But it will fail without extents feature because
> > indirect-based file haven't unwritten extent. Please check 285.full
> > file, and you will see that test07 fails.
> >
> > BTW, I am trying to fix this problem for xfstests.
> >
> > Regards,
> > - Zheng
> >
>
> Hi Zheng:
>
> Thanks very much for your explanation and reminder - it is indeed test07 that
> fails. I'm looking forward to testing your fix when it's ready.
Actually I just let xfstest #285 check unwritten extent feature. If the
file system doesn't support it #285 will be skipped. Meanwhile I create
a new test case that only contains test case 1~6. You can find first
version in this link [1].
1. http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg16231.html
Regards,
- Zheng
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-25 2:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-23 0:09 ext4 xfstests results for 3.8 on Pandaboard ES (ARM) Eric Whitney
2013-02-23 5:19 ` Zheng Liu
2013-02-24 19:35 ` Eric Whitney
2013-02-25 2:47 ` Zheng Liu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130225024733.GA4477@gmail.com \
--to=gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com \
--cc=enwlinux@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.