* new xfs/103 failure
@ 2016-11-12 16:32 Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-12 17:00 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-12 18:31 ` Eryu Guan
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2016-11-12 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fstests, linux-xfs
After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible
xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else
see this?
root@testvm:~/xfstests# diff -u tests/xfs/103.out
/root/xfstests/results//xfs/103
--- tests/xfs/103.outs# 2016-03-29 13:59:30.451720622
+0000stests/results//xfs/10
+++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103.out.bad 2016-11-12
16:30:37.032780388 +0000
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
*** mount
*** testing nosymlinks directories
*** setting nosymlinks bit
---n-- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink
+----- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink
ln: creating symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink/target': Operation not permitted
*** 1st listing...
SCRATCH_MNT
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: new xfs/103 failure
2016-11-12 16:32 new xfs/103 failure Christoph Hellwig
@ 2016-11-12 17:00 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-12 18:31 ` Eryu Guan
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2016-11-12 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: fstests, linux-xfs
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 08:32:48AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible
> xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else
> see this?
I do.
--D
>
> root@testvm:~/xfstests# diff -u tests/xfs/103.out
> /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103
> --- tests/xfs/103.outs# 2016-03-29 13:59:30.451720622
> +0000stests/results//xfs/10
> +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103.out.bad 2016-11-12
> 16:30:37.032780388 +0000
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> *** mount
> *** testing nosymlinks directories
> *** setting nosymlinks bit
> ---n-- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink
> +----- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink
> ln: creating symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink/target': Operation not permitted
> *** 1st listing...
> SCRATCH_MNT
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: new xfs/103 failure
2016-11-12 16:32 new xfs/103 failure Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-12 17:00 ` Darrick J. Wong
@ 2016-11-12 18:31 ` Eryu Guan
2016-11-13 12:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Eryu Guan @ 2016-11-12 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: fstests, linux-xfs
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 08:32:48AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible
> xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else
> see this?
I see xfs/103 hang with latest xfsprogs & xfstests, and after applying
this xfstests patch xfs/103 passed for me without problem. kernel is
for-next branch from xfs tree.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg04308.html
Not sure if this is related to your problem.
Thanks,
Eryu
>
> root@testvm:~/xfstests# diff -u tests/xfs/103.out
> /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103
> --- tests/xfs/103.outs# 2016-03-29 13:59:30.451720622
> +0000stests/results//xfs/10
> +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103.out.bad 2016-11-12
> 16:30:37.032780388 +0000
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> *** mount
> *** testing nosymlinks directories
> *** setting nosymlinks bit
> ---n-- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink
> +----- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink
> ln: creating symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink/target': Operation not permitted
> *** 1st listing...
> SCRATCH_MNT
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: new xfs/103 failure
2016-11-12 18:31 ` Eryu Guan
@ 2016-11-13 12:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2016-11-13 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eryu Guan; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, fstests, linux-xfs
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:31:29AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 08:32:48AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible
> > xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else
> > see this?
>
> I see xfs/103 hang with latest xfsprogs & xfstests, and after applying
> this xfstests patch xfs/103 passed for me without problem. kernel is
> for-next branch from xfs tree.
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg04308.html
>
> Not sure if this is related to your problem.
With that patch applies the test passes for me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-11-13 12:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-11-12 16:32 new xfs/103 failure Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-12 17:00 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-12 18:31 ` Eryu Guan
2016-11-13 12:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox