From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id qAUG3vKK189271 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:03:57 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DRukTLGuVzIpvv61 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:06:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:06:16 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used Message-ID: <20121130160616.GD5667@infradead.org> References: <50B7B0AB.6040406@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50B7B0AB.6040406@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-oss On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > This will cause the $SCRATCH_DEV to be fscked if it > was used in the prior test. Without this I don't > think it gets done unless specifically requested > by the test. This one looks good. > Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck > doesn't complain. This one I can't make any sense of. Care to send it separately with a good explanation? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs