On Tue 12-11-13 12:23:53, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 11/12/13, 12:18 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 11/7/13, 2:46 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> For historical reasons beyond my knowledge xfstests tries to abuse the > >> scratch device as test device for nfs and udf. Because not all test > >> have inherited the right usage of the _setup_testdir and _cleanup_testdir > >> helpers this leads to lots of unessecary test failures. > >> > >> Remove the special casing, which gets nfs down to a minimal number of > >> failures. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > > > > > Oof, that was a lot of cruft. Were you able to run UDF tests with > > these changes? I wonder if Jan is using this for UDF? > > > > (I don't have the UDF verifier that many(/all?) of the UDF tests > > require). No, I don't run xfstests for udf since there are only minimal changes to udf these days and the problems tend to be more in compatibility with various udf formats (since udf has about four ways how to do each thing and you can decide which way your implementation does it which gets hairy when you have to read all these combinations). But it's an interesting idea to try running xfstests on UDF. I actually have the verifier so I should be able to make it run... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
