On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 1:02 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 01:07:53AM +0800, An Long 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 > > This change will bring failure to downstream distro. Please refer to > _filter_error_mount (or other filters you like), add new filter to > it to help this test passed on old and new util-linux. Isn't that what I said in my previous reply [1]? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/CAL3q7H7fzCQE0qjZEgeAJ2jvBsJxbYN-S=XpWFu5KDoaXgqsZQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Thanks, > Zorro > > > > 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 > > > > > >
