Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Failure\s+of\s+xfstests\s+test\s+case\s+202\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Failure\s+of\s+xfstests\s+test\s+case\s+202\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. Failure of xfstests test case 202 (score: 1): Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:39:47 -0700; Hi all, Test case 202 tries to create a single AG filesystem and runs xfs_repair on it expecting it to fail. But, when I run the test with a filesystem that is bigger than 1TB it fails (not pleasantl; /archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00178.html (8,049 bytes)
2. Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:19:11 -0400; What about: _scratch_mkfs_sized `expr 1024 \* 1024 \* 1024` instead?; /archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00179.html (8,126 bytes)
3. Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 (score: 1): Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:33:44 -0700; Good point. Here is a solution based on your suggestion, but not using _scratch_mkfs_sized (sincein the current context we need it to take extra option, whereas _scratch_mkfs_sized takes fixed option; /archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00180.html (9,939 bytes)
4. Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 07:41:43 +1000; Why the second mkfs attempt with a fixed block size? That will still fail for block size > 4k. All you need to do is detect the first attempt failed. This is not necessary - the golden image compare; /archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00181.html (8,892 bytes)
5. Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 (score: 1): Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:25:58 -0700; to see if the mkfs failed because the default filesystem size is too big. Realized that. It should have been absolute. But, I didn't want the test to fail, instead want it to proceed if big filesyste; /archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00183.html (10,512 bytes)
6. Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:59:30 +1000; The reason for the failure will be in the test output. If the tests fail, you should be looking at the test output to find out why anyway, right? I haven't seen it yet. It's perfectly clear - the out; /archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00186.html (11,704 bytes)
7. Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:07:00 +1000; Should work for most test setups. But as I said before, this change is not necessary. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00187.html (11,007 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]