On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 05:27:39AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 07:24:28AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 11/7/13, 2:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:20:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >> that's right, it's a known bug w/ a testcase but no fix yet. > > >> > > >> I looked a bit, but ugh, xfsdump. > > > > > > Maybe it's time you come up with an xfail mechanism at least? > > > > What's the proposal there, a "fail" group for things known to still > > fail everywhere? > > > > so i.e. ./check -x fail ? I can easily send a patch for that if > > that's what folks want. > > A mechnism to annotate a test as xfail, so that check would output them > at the end ala: > > Expected failures: common/263 > Unexpected successes: reiser4/001 If you have a test that fails in your test environment and you don't want to run it, use the expunged test mechanism. You can maintain it yourself for your own test environment. $ cat tests/xfs/expunged 078 $ sudo MKFS_OPTIONS="-m crc=1" ./check -X expunged xfs/078 FSTYP -- xfs (debug) PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test2 3.12.0-rc7-dgc+ MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m crc=1 /dev/vdb MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/vdb /mnt/scratch xfs/078 [expunged] Passed all 0 tests If we really want to, we can add default expunged files for different distros so they don't run tests that are known to fail and are not likely to be fixed automatically. That handles the "test doesn't fail everywhere" problem that xfail has.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
