On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 08:32:48AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > After recently upgrading the xfs and xfsprogs trees I get reproducible > xfs/103 failures because the n flags is not reported. Does anyone else > see this? I see xfs/103 hang with latest xfsprogs & xfstests, and after applying this xfstests patch xfs/103 passed for me without problem. kernel is for-next branch from xfs tree. http://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg04308.html Not sure if this is related to your problem. Thanks, Eryu > > root@testvm:~/xfstests# diff -u tests/xfs/103.out > /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103 > --- tests/xfs/103.outs# 2016-03-29 13:59:30.451720622 > +0000stests/results//xfs/10 > +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/103.out.bad 2016-11-12 > 16:30:37.032780388 +0000 > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > *** mount > *** testing nosymlinks directories > *** setting nosymlinks bit > ---n-- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink > +----- SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink > ln: creating symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/nosymlink/target': Operation not permitted > *** 1st listing... > SCRATCH_MNT > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
