* xfstests test case 229 fails consistently
@ 2011-06-14 18:53 Chandra Seetharaman
2011-06-14 19:39 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-06-14 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: XFS Mailing List
Hello All,
xfstests test case 229 fails consistently in my x84_64 system.
Only thing that is different between runs is the number of errors.
Any suggestions on how to proceed with the debug.
regards,
chandra
229 118s ... [failed, exit status 45] - output mismatch (see 229.out.bad)
--- 229.out 2011-04-20 08:34:36.000000000 -0700
+++ 229.out.bad 2011-06-03 14:53:22.000000000 -0700
@@ -1,4 +1,49 @@
QA output created by 229
generating 10 files
comparing files
-got 0 errors
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 274433, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 274433, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 differ: char 274433, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 274433, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 270337, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 278529, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 282625, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 270337, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 270337, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 262145, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 266241, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 70037361, line 8097
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 266241, line 1
+got 45 errors
Ran: 229
Failures: 229
Failed 1 of 1 tests
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests test case 229 fails consistently
2011-06-14 18:53 xfstests test case 229 fails consistently Chandra Seetharaman
@ 2011-06-14 19:39 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-06-14 20:47 ` Chandra Seetharaman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2011-06-14 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sekharan; +Cc: XFS Mailing List
On 6/14/11 1:53 PM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> xfstests test case 229 fails consistently in my x84_64 system.
> Only thing that is different between runs is the number of errors.
> Any suggestions on how to proceed with the debug.
>
> regards,
>
> chandra
>
This one is known to fail.
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2011-05/msg00237.html
"it's never passed. It's a placeholder to remind us how to
reproduce a known problem that is difficult to fix."
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests test case 229 fails consistently
2011-06-14 19:39 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2011-06-14 20:47 ` Chandra Seetharaman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-06-14 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: XFS Mailing List
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 14:39 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/14/11 1:53 PM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > xfstests test case 229 fails consistently in my x84_64 system.
> > Only thing that is different between runs is the number of errors.
> > Any suggestions on how to proceed with the debug.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > chandra
> >
>
> This one is known to fail.
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2011-05/msg00237.html
>
> "it's never passed. It's a placeholder to remind us how to
> reproduce a known problem that is difficult to fix."
>
> -Eric
IIRC, correctly there are more tests like these (placeholder to remind
us how to reproduce ...). Would it be a good idea to list them in a file
and refer them in README ?
If yes, Can you provide me the list :), I promise a patch with the
changes.
chandra
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-14 20:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-06-14 18:53 xfstests test case 229 fails consistently Chandra Seetharaman
2011-06-14 19:39 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-06-14 20:47 ` Chandra Seetharaman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox