From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F9F7FDF for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:27:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2161AAC00B for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 05:27:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 05:27:39 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: xfstest failures Message-ID: <20131107132739.GA16608@infradead.org> References: <20131106105451.GA31283@infradead.org> <20131106161825.GU1935@sgi.com> <527A887F.2030807@sandeen.net> <20131107081710.GC25157@infradead.org> <527B948C.9060905@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <527B948C.9060905@sandeen.net> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Ben Myers , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 07:24:28AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 11/7/13, 2:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:20:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> that's right, it's a known bug w/ a testcase but no fix yet. > >> > >> I looked a bit, but ugh, xfsdump. > > > > Maybe it's time you come up with an xfail mechanism at least? > > What's the proposal there, a "fail" group for things known to still > fail everywhere? > > so i.e. ./check -x fail ? I can easily send a patch for that if > that's what folks want. A mechnism to annotate a test as xfail, so that check would output them at the end ala: Expected failures: common/263 Unexpected successes: reiser4/001 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs