Re: Ext4 new shutdown ioctl fails generic/04{4,5,6}

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:25:56AM +0800, Xiong Zhou wrote:
> 
> On latest Linus tree, xfstests generic/04{4,5,6} fails.

Yes, that's known issue.  generic/04[456] were originally XFS specific
tests, and they have have assumptions about the implementation of the
underlying file system.

We have a few of those at the moment in kvm-xfstests/gce-xfstests's
exclude file:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/ext2/xfstests-bld.git/tree/kvm-xfstests/test-appliance/files/root/fs/ext4/exclude

# generic/042 and generic/392 are failing because ext4 forces the
# resolution of all delayed allocation writes before allowing the
# punch operation to proceed.  We probably want to see if we can avoid
# this for the future, but what ext4 is doing is legal, so just skip
# the test for now
generic/042
generic/392

# generic/04[456] tests how truncate and delayed allocation works
# ext4 uses the data=ordered to avoid exposing stale data, and
# so it uses a different mechanism than xfs.  So these tests will fail
generic/044
generic/045
generic/046

# generic/223 tests file alignment, which works on ext4 only by
# accident because we're not RAID stripe aware yet, and works at all
# because we have bias towards aligning on power-of-two block numbers.
# It is a flaky test for some configurations, so skip it.
generic/223

# ext4/304 fails for all configurations, and this appears to be at
# test or fio bug.
#
ext4/304

Cheers,

						- Ted



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux