On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 02:40:40PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > Eryu, > I've noticed that these tests fails under what I think is a normal > config (BRD of 48G). We have an expectation that for simple configs all > tests in the 'auto' group should pass, and these ones don't. Are these No, 'auto' group doesn't mean the test should pass, we do add tests that're known to fail to auto group, but with the expectation that the failures will be fixed in the near future. > false positive failures? If so, what do we need to do to remove these > false positives? a) fix the tests to handle these cases b) remove the And some tests do fail on unusual configs/setups, e.g. 2M extent setting in your case, and some tests may not work well with 4k-sector disks. We'd want to fix the tests but sometimes it's hard to make test work with all configs, perhahs it's just not worth it if the config is strange enough and no one cares about it.. But I do like to see the easy ones get fixed. > tests from the 'auto' group? Something else? Attached file with test > outputs. I think some if not all of these failures have lasted many > kernel versions. > > # xfs > generic/009 > generic/012 > generic/016 > generic/021 > generic/022 > generic/058 > generic/060 > generic/061 > generic/063 > generic/092 > generic/255 > xfs/167 > xfs/191-input-validation This tests mkfs.xfs behavior and AFAIK it fails after Dave's mkfs refactor patchset, the test itself requires some fixes. > xfs/242 > xfs/252 > xfs/432 > > # ext4 > generic/388 This is a known issue on ext4, there's a discussion thread on ext4 list. https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=151629719004002&w=2 Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
