From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:6386 "EHLO ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751176AbbBRBP4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:15:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:15:21 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Test xfs/106 failure Message-ID: <20150218011521.GN4251@dastard> References: <20150217163149.GA1824@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150217163149.GA1824@quack.suse.cz> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 05:31:49PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > I'm consistently getting failure in xfs/106 test because the files > created by fsstress are just completely different from what they are > expected to be. It almost seems as if the random numbers generated for > fsstress are different. Anyone has seen this as well? If it's not in the auto group, then it's not expected to function as a reliable regression test. There are few tests around the xfs/100 to xfs/130 that fall into this category. Some were tests that were never completed, others were simply a method of exercising the functionality and not intended to have deterministic output and hence "always fail". given the amount of commented out functionality and comments like "# not yet working properly?" in xfs/106 leads me to beleive it falls into the former category of "unfinished". Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com