On 4/15/12 9:46 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 4/13/12 4:49 AM, tmarek@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Tom Marek <tmarek@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Tests number 062 was supposed to work with ext4 fs but there were some >> problems in it - Tests haven't considered existence of lost+found directory in >> ext4. Also when scratch was mounted with SELinux context test failed because >> fgetattr returns SELinux extended attributes. And when fgetattr is run with >> recursive flag it's output might change between file systems due to different >> file ordering. Fix this by sorting the output manually. Also all lines >> containing SELinux and lost+found were removed from output. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Marek <tmarek@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Have you run the latest xfstests? This looks a lot like: > > commit 2fb1c931a6090f646afa44e4ce3f1f9815af9067 > Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Jan 27 12:28:20 2012 -0600 > > 062: Sort recursive getfattr output > > Test 062 was made "generic" a while back, but it fails on any filesystem > which returns getfattr -R results (aka readdir results) in something > other than inode-order. > > With a little awk-fu we can sort the records from getfattr -R so that > the output is the same for xfs as well as ext4, etc. > > Also filter out lost+found which extN creates at mkfs time, but > some other filesystems do not. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Oh, and as for selinux, scratch should be getting mounted with an fs-wide selinux context mount option, I think? -Eric > -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
