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. Current failures here with v4.3-rcX on both sides and a current xfstests: Failures: generic/042 xfs/076 xfs/078 xfs/079 042 is expected to fail, xfs/076 is testing sparse inodes (check doesn't understand them), xfs/078 is failing because I'm testing on 4k sector devices and it wants to use a 2k block size. xfs/079 is failing because repair is reporting: found illegal null character in symlink inode 16811448 problem with symbolic link in inode 16811448 would have cleared inode 16811448 but the check is clean. So that may be a new regression. I haven't looked into it more deeply than that. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
