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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 92092C43331 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B661222CD for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="jUkHh1it" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725858AbfKMGQy (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:16:54 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:55457 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725866AbfKMGQy (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:16:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1573625813; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AIZp9yHBFDUruuXW0JJC83eKv9Q2/zaGLYS7xvC/kAM=; b=jUkHh1itCo4BL6/EbwjcAJCGt/lqqW5SfAfiyWwbtH0EV4g8tqUWQZ9KlaCKOYTBj9BbxK nBAgSlpVWpERaQUZiPI/C2yOHXx8ptodERZCA2IqbwfvuyWoCUiJo2JESwqnmc77YoJf76 Lnc2WMSp7JVdqvhB0642IBa+BIbcg7A= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-135-BJZpVlNKOnKu364uHqvsJw-1; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:16:47 -0500 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 mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51A1718B5F71; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13C164D751; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.83.19]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90E34BB5C; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:16:45 -0500 (EST) From: Jan Stancek To: Ian Kent , kernel test robot Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , LKML , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org, ltp@lists.linux.it, DavidHowells , AlViro Message-ID: <975334005.11814790.1573625805426.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20191111010022.GH29418@shao2-debian> <3fb8b1b04dd7808b45caf5262ee629c09c71e0b6.camel@themaw.net> <1108442397.11662343.1573560143066.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20191112120818.GA8858@lst.de> <5f758be455bb8f761d028ea078b3e2a618dfd4b1.camel@themaw.net> Subject: Re: [LTP] [xfs] 73e5fff98b: kmsg.dev/zero:Can't_open_blockdev MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.43.17.163, 10.4.195.20] Thread-Topic: 73e5fff98b: kmsg.dev/zero:Can't_open_blockdev Thread-Index: AzWavxd/8PGGbt3Ud1LytMdxvpbGqQ== X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-MC-Unique: BJZpVlNKOnKu364uHqvsJw-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > > > > # mount -t xfs /dev/zero /mnt/xfs > >=20 > > Assuming that is what is being done ... >=20 > Arrrh, of course, a difference between get_tree_bdev() and > mount_bdev() is that get_tree_bdev() prints this message when > blkdev_get_by_path() fails whereas mount_bdev() doesn't. >=20 > Both however do return an error in this case so the behaviour > is the same. >=20 > So I'm calling this not a problem with the subject patch. >=20 > What needs to be done to resolve this in ltp I don't know? I think that's question for kernel test robot, which has this extra check built on top. ltp itself doesn't treat this extra message as FAIL. Jan