Lets remove 075 and 112 for now. On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:07 PM ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I tried it to Samba a few minutes ago and it worked fine with current for-next > > and also:q it looks important (data integrity etc.). Test description > > > > # Test that mmap read doesn't see non-zero data past EOF on truncate down. > > # > > # This is inspired by an XFS bug that truncate down fails to zero page cache > > # beyond new EOF and causes stale data written to disk unexpectedly and a > > # subsequent mmap reads and sees non-zeros post EOF. > > > > I have two test targets, both Samba localhost. One succeeds for all 8 of > > the ones that we were worried about: > > > > ./check -cifs generic/013 generic/014 generic/024 generic/030 > > generic/069 generic/075 generic/112 generic/125 generic/346 > > generic/469 > > generic/469 works against samba but not against windows. > So we need to change the buildbot to run it against smb3samba instead of smb3. > > > > > > The other succeeds on all but 075 and 112 which worked on the 'old' > > xfstests from a month ago, but fail on the one with the newer > > xfstests. > > > > So I think we are ok with 469 ... but we do have to figure out what to > > do with what seems to be either a regression in 075 and 112 xfstests > > (a bug in the tests) or something that the updated tests are now > > seeing as a cifs bug. My theory is that it is due to this xfstest > > commit: > > > > root@smf-Thinkpad-P51:~/xfstests-dev# git log tests/generic/075 > > commit ec295d73ac19a42d1f022cb074d0bd506252cb3b > > Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Feb 15 13:41:40 2019 +0100 > > > > generic/075,112: detect preallocation support for fsx tests > > > > Currently generic/075 and generic/112 have two extra fsx passes each > > that exercise fsx with preallocation, which are only enabled for > > XFS. > > > > These tests can also be run with other file systems, given that the > > XFS prealloc ioctls are implemented in generic code since the > > addition of the fallocate system call. This also means a version of > > XFS that does not support preallocation (e.g. because it always > > writes out of place) can skip the prealloc tests while still > > completing the normal fsx tests just fine. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:10 PM ronnie sahlberg > > <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > generic/469 does it work for you? > > > It fails in the tests. > > > > > > I have tried it locally and it always fails here. With current > > > for-next as well as for-next as of a month ago. > > > Same for xfs-tests, with current as well as months old master. > > > > > > Lets remove it. > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 3:05 PM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Added four xfs subtests to the cifs-testing buildbot (and 3 of these > > > > were also missing from the Azure buildbot so added them to Azure as > > > > well) > > > > + [ "generic/464", "smb3"], > > > > + [ "generic/469", "smb3"], > > > > + [ "generic/524", "smb3"], > > > > + [ "generic/528", "smb3samba], > > > > > > > > Testing the three new tests for Azure in > > > > http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/4/builds/105 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > > > Steve
