From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FAC7CBF for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293018F8033 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id KusK1Kx1WNgTc7lR for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:16:55 -0400 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: XFS assertion from truncate. (3.10-rc2) Message-ID: <20130524201655.GA23086@redhat.com> References: <20130522052938.GA2573@redhat.com> <20130522055147.GI29466@dastard> <20130522215454.GL29466@dastard> <20130523184948.GA11151@redhat.com> <20130523223038.GB24543@dastard> <20130524004906.GA21171@redhat.com> <20130524012625.GH24543@dastard> <20130524015219.GA28486@redhat.com> <20130524030300.GA30760@redhat.com> <20130524080300.GI24543@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130524080300.GI24543@dastard> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Linux Kernel , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 06:03:00PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > xfstest generic/193 is *supposed* to test behaviour of suid/sgid bits > and clearing them is various situations. > > You know what I'm about to say, don't you? The test doesn't test > what it thinks it is testing. it puts the destination file in root > directory of the xfstests harness, not in the filesystems being > tested. awesome, two bugs for the price of one! > So, on all my machines, it runs on ext3 filesystems, never on the > ext4, btrfs, xfs, etc filesystems that I'm actually testing. > > That's beside the point, because it doesn't test truncate behaviour. > But at least I know now why my attempts to reproduce the problem > didn't work... > > Right, patch below should fix the problem. Haven't seen anything out of the ordinary since I applied that, so I'd call it good. > What a frustrating bug. Now, where's my bottle of scotch? heh, enjoy the weekend. Dave _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs