On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:57:52PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:32:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:16:59PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > just FYI the 042 xfstest does fail on xfs with what I think is stale > > > data exposure. It might not be related at all to what crashmonkey is > > > reporting but there is something wrong nevertheless. > > > > generic/042 is unreliable and certain operations result in a > > non-zero length file because of metadata commits/writeback that > > occur as a result of the fallocate operations. It got removed from > > the auto group because it isn't a reliable test about 3 years ago: > > Sure, I just that it clearly exposes stale data on xfs. That is, the > resulting file contains data that was previously written to the > underlying image file to catch the exposure. I am aware of the non-zero > length file problem, that's not what I am pointing out though. What setup are you testing on? I haven't seen it fail in some time. Here, on emulated pmem: SECTION -- xfs FSTYP -- xfs (debug) PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test4 4.16.0-rc5-dgc MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/pmem1 MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch xfs/042 10s ... 14s Passed all 1 tests SECTION -- xfs ========================= Passed all 1 tests And on a different machine, with iSCSI devices and a slightly older kernel: SECTION -- xfs FSTYP -- xfs (debug) PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test2 4.16.0-rc2-dgc MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/sdg MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sdg /mnt/scratch xfs/042 14s ... 14s Passed all 1 tests SECTION -- xfs ========================= Passed all 1 tests It passes just fine. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
