Kodiak Furr liked your message with Boxer.
On January 29, 2014 at 3:43:59 PM CST, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/29/14, 3:38 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:45:02PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote:
>> ext4/306 will fail when mounting the ext3 file system it creates if an
>> ext3-incompatible mount option is applied by _scratch_mount. This can
>> happen if EXT_MOUNT_OPTIONS is defined appropriately in the test
>> environment. For example, the block_validity option is commonly used
>> to enhance ext4 testing, and it is not supported by ext3. Fix this by
>> not including any mount options defined by the test environment.
>
> I'm not sure I understand why the test is insisting that the file
> system be mounted using ext3. If the file system is created without
> the extents flag, all of the files will be created using indirect
> blocks, and fundamentally what this test is getting at is that after
> we grow the file system using resize2fs, the new blocks are available
> to be allocated and attached to an indirect block file.
>
> We can do this by using ext4; I'm not sure why this test is trying to
> use ext3 to set up the test flie system. It might be better to get
> rid of the requirement to create the file system using ext3, since it
> will make the test runnable even if the ext3 file system hasn't been
> configured into the system and CONFIG_EXT23_AS_EXT4 is not enabled.
>
> IIRC, Eric Sandeen wrote this test --- Eric, am I missing some reason
> why it was necessary to use ext3 here?
Nope. Tomayto, tomahto - I think the original report had trouble with
an ext3 filesystem, so that's how I wrote the testcase.
It could be fixed either way, I think.
-Eric
>
> - Ted
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
