From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01156C4CECD for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 02:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F29218AC for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 02:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726524AbfIRCvx (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:51:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34028 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726269AbfIRCvx (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:51:53 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C91308212D; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 02:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com [10.66.12.102]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DC35C21A; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 02:51:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:59:15 +0800 From: Zorro Lang To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: "Xu, Yang" , "fstests@vger.kernel.org" , xfs Subject: Re: question of xfs/148 and xfs/149 Message-ID: <20190918025915.GK7239@dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com> References: <4BF2FD5A942B1C4B828DDAF5635768C1041AB0E2@G08CNEXMBPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local> <20190917163933.GC736475@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190917163933.GC736475@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.47]); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 02:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:39:33AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > [add linux-xfs to cc] > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:00:57AM +0000, Xu, Yang wrote: > > HI All > > > > When I investigated xfs/030 failure on upstream kernel after mering > > xfstests commit d0e484ac699f ("check: wipe scratch devices between > > tests"), I found two similar cases(xfs/148,xfs/149). xfs/030 is weird, I've found it long time ago. If I do a 'whole disk mkfs' (_scratch_mkfs_xfs), before this sized mkfs: _scratch_mkfs_xfs $DSIZE >/dev/null 2>&1 Everything looks clear, and test pass. I can't send a patch to do this, because I don't know the reason. I'm not familiar with xfs_repair so much, so I don't know what happens underlying. I suppose the the part after the $DSIZE affect the xfs_repair, but I don't know why the wipefs can cause that, wipefs only erase 4 bytes at the beginning. Darrick, do you know more about that? Thanks, Zorro > > > > xfs/148 is a clone of test 030 using xfs_prepair64 instead of xfs_repair. > > xfs/149 is a clone of test 031 using xfs_prepair instead of xfs_repair I'm not worried about it too much, due to it always 'not run' and never fails:) xfs/148 [not run] parallel repair binary xfs_prepair64 is not installed xfs/149 [not run] parallel repair binary xfs_prepair is not installed Ran: xfs/148 xfs/149 Not run: xfs/148 xfs/149 Passed all 2 tests > > > > But I don't find these two commands and know nothing about them. If > > these commands have been obsoleted long time ago, I think we can > > remove the two cases. Or may I miss something? > > I think your analysis is correct, but let's see what the xfs > list thinks. > > --D > > > > > Thanks > > Yang Xu > > > >