On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:12:12AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > 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/ Oh, sorry I replied directly due to I thought my old change when I saw this patch. commit e937e23d202173d112cfe7621d8b860f691ce42d Author: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri May 27 20:11:15 2022 +0800 common/filter: filter out extra mount error output Sure, you're right, thanks for reviewing :) Thanks, Zorro > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
