new xfs/103 failure
After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else see this?
root@testvm:~/xfstests# diff -u tests/xfs/103.out /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103 --- tests/xfs/103.outs# 2016-03-29 13:59:30.451720622 +0000stests/results//xfs/10 +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103.out.bad 2016-11-12 16:30:37.032780388 +0000 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ *** mount *** testing nosymlinks directories *** setting nosymlinks bit ---n-- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink +----- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink ln: creating symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink/target': Operation not permitted *** 1st listing... SCRATCH_MNT
Quoted 3 lines · Christoph Hellwig
After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else see this?
I do.
--D
Quoted 21 lines
root@testvm:~/xfstests# diff -u tests/xfs/103.out /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103 --- tests/xfs/103.outs# 2016-03-29 13:59:30.451720622 +0000stests/results//xfs/10 +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103.out.bad 2016-11-12 16:30:37.032780388 +0000(quoted diff) +1
-2@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ *** mount *** testing nosymlinks directories *** setting nosymlinks bit ---n-- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink +----- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink ln: creating symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink/target': Operation not permitted *** 1st listing... SCRATCH_MNT --To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 3 lines · Christoph Hellwig
After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else see this?
I see xfs/103 hang with latest xfsprogs & xfstests, and after applying this xfstests patch xfs/103 passed for me without problem. kernel is for-next branch from xfs tree.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg04308.html
Not sure if this is related to your problem.
Thanks,
Eryu
Quoted 21 lines
root@testvm:~/xfstests# diff -u tests/xfs/103.out /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103 --- tests/xfs/103.outs# 2016-03-29 13:59:30.451720622 +0000stests/results//xfs/10 +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103.out.bad 2016-11-12 16:30:37.032780388 +0000(quoted diff) +1
-2@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ *** mount *** testing nosymlinks directories *** setting nosymlinks bit ---n-- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink +----- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink ln: creating symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink/target': Operation not permitted *** 1st listing... SCRATCH_MNT --To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 5 lines · Eryu Guan
Quoted 3 lines · Christoph Hellwig
After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else see this?
Quoted 7 lines
I see xfs/103 hang with latest xfsprogs & xfstests, and after applying this xfstests patch xfs/103 passed for me without problem. kernel is for-next branch from xfs tree.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg04308.html
Not sure if this is related to your problem.
With that patch applies the test passes for me.