* Eric Sandeen <esandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. > If using ext3 doesn't add any additional value to the test, using ext4 instead certainly simplifies it. I'll post a V2 shortly. Thanks, Eric > -Eric > > > > > - Ted > > > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
