On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:17:57PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > > 301'th xfstests are failed due to : > commit d100eef2440fea13e4f09e88b1c8bcbca64beb9f > Author: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Feb 18 00:29:59 2013 -0500 > > ext4: lookup block mapping in extent status tree > > TESTCASE: https://github.com/dmonakhov/xfstests/commit/7b7efeee30a41109201e2040034e71db9b66ddc0 Thanks for the heads up. I haven't updatied the xfstests I've been using yet, since I want to make sure I'm comparing apples and oranges during the merge window when I'm checking for regressions; I'll update my xfstests in a week or two after the merge window settles down, and then I'll rerun my baseline tests using the updated xfstests against 3.8.0 and 3.9-rc2 or 3.9-rc3. (And furthermore, these new xfstests aren't yet in xfstests upstream yet, right? Any comments from the xfstests maintainer about whether they are going to be willing to take your proposed new test cases?) So when you say this is a regression, I take it that this test #301 doesn't fail on commit d100eef2440f^, but it does fail on d100eef2440f, correct? - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
