On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:23:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:20:13AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > As is this makes xfstests rather unhappy by failing tests. I'm not > > > sure if that's issues in the blockget / xfs_check functionality or > > > because it actually finds bugs in the kernel code. > > > > Which tests, specifically? I ran all the tests in the 'quick' group and of > > the relatively few errors I saw, I couldn't trace any of them back to blockget. > > > > Earlier patch editions caused such problems, but afaict I've fixed them all. :) > > shared/006 xfs/076 xfs/206 xfs/250 > > although xfs/206 also fails just due to reflink output from mkfs, but > I'll send a patch for that soon. Hmm. I suspect shared/006 and xfs/250 are fixed by Dave's patch to validate AGI blocks with the AGI buf ops instead of the AGFL buf ops. They don't trigger errors now that I've rebased on xfsprogs 4.3-rc1. I suspect xfs/076 fails because xfs_db doesn't know about sparse inodes. That's probably because I haven't totally figured them out either. I'll have a look at that. --D _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
