Refreshed rootfs.img for kvm-xfstests
Hi, I've uploaded an updated rootfs.img at:
https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/kvm-xfstests
It includes the xfstests-dev upstream version 0e6ead559169 (Updated from Oct. 14th) and some configuration changes to minimize some test failure noise. The config files are commented with the known failures, for example:
I am currently getting the following results:
BEGIN TEST 4k: Ext4 4k block Sun Oct 25 07:29:52 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/304
BEGIN TEST 1k: Ext4 1k block Sun Oct 25 08:12:58 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/304 generic/018
BEGIN TEST ext3: Ext4 4k block emulating ext3 Sun Oct 25 09:01:21 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/301 ext4/302 ext4/303 ext4/304 generic/018
BEGIN TEST encrypt: Ext4 encryption Sun Oct 25 09:44:13 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/301 ext4/303 ext4/304
BEGIN TEST nojournal: Ext4 4k block w/ no journal Sun Oct 25 10:20:57 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/301 ext4/304
BEGIN TEST ext3conv: Ext4 4k block w/nodelalloc and no flex_bg Sun Oct 25 11:01:06 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/304
BEGIN TEST dioread_nolock: Ext4 4k block w/dioread_nolock Sun Oct 25 11:41:36 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/001 ext4/304 ext4/308 generic/324
BEGIN TEST data_journal_noleak: Ext4 4k block w/data=journal Sun Oct 25 12:24:57 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/271 ext4/301 ext4/302 ext4/303 ext4/304 ext4/308 generic/018 BEGIN TEST inline: Ext4 4k block w/inline Sun Oct 25 13:16:58 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/304
BEGIN TEST bigalloc: Ext4 4k block w/bigalloc Sun Oct 25 14:00:23 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/004 generic/018 generic/204 generic/219 generic/235 generic/273 BEGIN TEST bigalloc_1k: Ext4 1k block w/bigalloc Sun Oct 25 14:46:29 EDT 2015
Failures: ext4/004 generic/018 generic/204 generic/235
(The ext4/30[1234] failures we only recently added back the these tests that had been previously marked as dangerous and not in the auto group. ext4/304 is pretty clearly a buggy test as near as I can tell. I haven't had a chance to rule out the others. generic/018 is an expected failures due to how we handle defrag; I should just add that to all.exclude. I need to take a closer look at some of the other failures to understand what is going on.)
- Ted