on 2022/08/03 12:21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Not sure what's up with this new test, but the golden output isn't right
> for upstream xfsprogs for-next. Change it to pass there...
It failed becuase libxfs code validates v5 feature fields.
b12d5ae5d ("xfs: validate v5 feature fields")
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/xfs/533.out | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/533.out b/tests/xfs/533.out
> index 7deb78a3..439fb16e 100644
> --- a/tests/xfs/533.out
> +++ b/tests/xfs/533.out
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> QA output created by 533
> Allowing write of corrupted data with good CRC
> magicnum = 0
> -bad magic number
> +Superblock has bad magic number 0x0. Not an XFS filesystem?
Since this case is designed to detect xfs_db bug, should we filter the
output?
Best Regards
Yang Xu
> 0
>
