On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 01:53:31AM +0000, xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> on 2022/08/03 12:21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Not sure what's up with this new test, but the golden output isn't right
> > for upstream xfsprogs for-next. Change it to pass there...
>
> It failed becuase libxfs code validates v5 feature fields.
>
> b12d5ae5d ("xfs: validate v5 feature fields")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/xfs/533.out | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/xfs/533.out b/tests/xfs/533.out
> > index 7deb78a3..439fb16e 100644
> > --- a/tests/xfs/533.out
> > +++ b/tests/xfs/533.out
> > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> > QA output created by 533
> > Allowing write of corrupted data with good CRC
> > magicnum = 0
> > -bad magic number
Ohhh, so this is a V4 output.
> > +Superblock has bad magic number 0x0. Not an XFS filesystem?
>
> Since this case is designed to detect xfs_db bug, should we filter the
> output?
Yep. I'll rework this patch to handle V4 and V5. Well, thanks for
keeping me on my toes! ;)
--D
> Best Regards
> Yang Xu
> > 0
> >
