On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 09:12:56AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:58:16PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > It's already part of xfs/244, I noticed this bug because xfs/244 kept > > running. I just put the minimum steps in commit log. So I think we're > > good :) > > But only as part of xfs/244 which doesn't work for v5 file systems. > To have good coverage we should not rely on testing an old format. > That beeing said I can't see a good reason for why xfs/244 should not > be run for v5 file systems, so I'll look into that instead. It's because it's testing the projid32bit mkfs option works correctly. i.e. that project IDs > 16 bits fail on a a filesystem that only supports 16 bit project IDs. v5 filesystems only support 32 bit project IDs, so setting a > 16bit ID will succeed, not fail like the test is expecting. A new test would be simplest. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
