On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 02:42:30PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:30:12PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:10:56PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > On 1/28/17 11:38 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Since we can't control the inode number assignments when creating files, > > > > don't hardcode them in the golden output. > > > > > > what numbers are you seeing? > > > > > > The inode numbers aren't important for the test, but I don't want to > > > gloss over something unexpected. > > > > I consistently see 131+64 = 195 and things like that. > > I occasionally see 195/6 inode numbers too, I suspect it has something > to do with 4k-sector disks. Test failed if I point SCRATCH_DEV to a > 4k-sector scsi_debug device, and test passed after applying this patch. Aha! I do have 4k-sector disks underlying the VMs that fail. Yes, that's the key. --D > > Thanks, > Eryu > -- > 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 -- 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
