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 0B97F29E17 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:32:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6268AC001 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:32:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qsH0FDLzLC5cCzWn (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:32:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:32:24 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: stop special casing nfs and udf Message-ID: <20131112183224.GA12213@infradead.org> References: <20131107204635.GA22954@infradead.org> <52827113.3080609@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52827113.3080609@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 , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:18:59PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 11/7/13, 2:46 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > For historical reasons beyond my knowledge xfstests tries to abuse the > > scratch device as test device for nfs and udf. Because not all test > > have inherited the right usage of the _setup_testdir and _cleanup_testdir > > helpers this leads to lots of unessecary test failures. > > > > Remove the special casing, which gets nfs down to a minimal number of > > failures. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > Oof, that was a lot of cruft. Were you able to run UDF tests with > these changes? I wonder if Jan is using this for UDF? I didn't bother testing udf, but it's just another block based filesystem, so unlike NFS I didn't expect breakage. Let me give it a spin.. > (I don't have the UDF verifier that many(/all?) of the UDF tests > require). Last time I did run xfstests on UDF it wasn't required, just an additional tool to verify the fs consistency. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs