From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9107F37 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 06:59:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <51961BE0.2080708@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 07:00:32 -0500 From: Rich Johnston MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 311: fsck the dmflakey device instead of the real device V2 References: <1368631217-15511-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> <5194E764.6030207@sgi.com> <20130516203035.GE1765@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20130516203035.GE1765@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Josef Bacik Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On 05/16/2013 03:30 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:04:20AM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote: >> On 05/15/2013 10:20 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> Dave pointed out that xfs was having issues with 311 because of caching issues. >>> He suggested that I fsck the dm-flakey device to make sure we don't have this >>> problem. Make _check_scratch_fs take an optional argument to use as the device >>> to fsck. Thanks, >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik >>> --- >> Hi Josef, >> >> Looks like it fails test 19 , are we supposed to see failures for ext4 >> and xfs? >> > > Yeah that's what I was seeing, if you run the fsync tester without the reboot > option and look at the file itself it should match the md5sum thats in the good > output. Thanks, > > Josef > Looks good. Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs