On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 6:08 PM An Long <lan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Mount error info changed since util-linux v2.40 > (91ea38e libmount: report failed syscall name). > So add "mount" before "system call failed". > > Signed-off-by: An Long <lan@xxxxxxxx> > --- > tests/btrfs/315.out | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/315.out b/tests/btrfs/315.out > index 3ea7a35a..a19ae8d5 100644 > --- a/tests/btrfs/315.out > +++ b/tests/btrfs/315.out > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > QA output created by 315 > ---- seed_device_must_fail ---- > mount: SCRATCH_MNT: WARNING: source write-protected, mounted read- > only. > -mount: TEST_DIR/315/tempfsid_mnt: system call failed: File exists. > +mount: TEST_DIR/315/tempfsid_mnt: mount system call failed: File So this makes the test pass with util-linux v2.40+, but makes it fail with older versions. The expectation that everyone is soon upgrading to v2.40 is unrealistic and some distros, especially enterprise ones, may take a long time to upgrade. What we do in fstests is to create a filter function that converts the output, so that the test runs with any version of util-linux (or any other package). Check common/filter, namely the _filter_error_mount() function. Also, when modifying btrfs tests, please also CC linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Thanks. > exists. > ---- device_add_must_fail ---- > wrote 9000/9000 bytes at offset 0 > XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) > -- > 2.43.0 > >
