On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:02:02AM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
> On 2020/12/21 0:55, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The master branch of the xfstests repository at:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git
> >
> > have just been updated. As usual, this update contains some new tests and
> > various bug fixes and improvements.
> >
> > New btrfs tests btrfs/154 and btrfs/227 all currently fail with latest kernel.
> > And xfs/513 has been updated to catch a xfs bug, but it should pass with latest
> > kenrel.
> >
> > Also, unionmount tests has been improved to run with custom overlay mount
> > options by assigning $OVERLAY_MOUNT_OPTIONS to UNIONMOUNT_MNTOPTIONS. You need
> > to update your local unionmount tests to latest to contain commit 95be14e
> > ("Allow user provided options with or without -o")
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eryu
> >
> > The new head of the master branch is commit:
> >
> > 0ad1c034838d overlay: run unionmount tests with custom overlay mount options
> >
> > New commits:
> >
> > Amir Goldstein (1):
> > [0ad1c034838d] overlay: run unionmount tests with custom overlay mount options
> >
> > Brian Foster (1):
> > [62cf7ce77f4f] generic/563: use a loop device to avoid partition incompatibility
> >
> > Eric Biggers (1):
> > [a225507009a3] generic: test for creating duplicate filenames in encrypted dir
> >
> > Feiyu Zhu (1):
> > [0c5013c565b7] src/t_enospc.c: Fix an error for the loop initialization declaration
> >
> > Filipe Manana (1):
> > [eabfcdfe9084] btrfs: test incremental send after removing a directory and all its files
> >
> > Kaixu Xia (1):
> > [c2dd12732f31] xfs/513: fix the regression caused by mount option uqnoenforce
> >
> > Nikolay Borisov (1):
> > [2a7406efecc2] btrfs: Update btrfs/215
> >
> > Ritesh Harjani (1):
> > [72dc169b442e] generic: Add test to check for mounting a huge sparse dm device
> >
> > Su Yue (1):
> > [a633d252e3c4] shared/032: add options for jffs2
> >
> > Xiao Yang (1):
> > [90d76997831e] src/multi_open_unlink: Stop using attr_set
> Hi Eryu,
>
> Only applying above patch broke the building of xfstests. :-)
> See my explanation on the original patch set.
Thanks for the heads-up! That's weird, I didn't see compile error in my
testing.. Will look into that.
Thanks,
Eryu
