On 11/30/12 10:06 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> This will cause the $SCRATCH_DEV to be fscked if it >> was used in the prior test. Without this I don't >> think it gets done unless specifically requested >> by the test. > > This one looks good. Hm now that I think of it perhaps I should remove the explicit _check_scratch-es if they happen at the end of the run, just to try to speed things up. >> Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck >> doesn't complain. > > This one I can't make any sense of. Care to send it separately with a > good explanation? > Ok, sure. Basically, test does an rm -rf of the scrach mnt, but e2fsck thinks that a missing lost+found/ is cause for complaint and a failure exit code, which then stops the tests :( (hum, now that I think about it, maybe a broken scratch device shouldn't stop the test series, but should just log a test failure? What do you think?) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
