| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfstests: failure to umount ext4 |
| From: | Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:01:01 +0200 |
| Cc: | XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=W2UtgubePfIxQwVbcYflLMc48uCN7NSUBHhbKVwqGdA=; b=MCVWwvB5CQnZVXYdQULw+G+ovMtgOcJ+J1F1r3Dqe2tV03MSjqnbR2eHYc5ebzzYg+ o+pM/mOOqVRZCmGiGaitG2XeA//SpN0fBF0GaTeSWIbuZmDPQzG7KQW2BFpXw1rkSvN4 /mAh7LLY0PN4Pb6ob/HMgZYMr2EDdXZVOpvGA= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dN+4BgEE42YRy5mH+61WWsQP3RFb2YMWFJq725wvQ7/lyVWOt4YOn7pQrXHN7QgdTu AU52GO/ruV+e0BIxJlL4dGRoK1hht9k2QaINNIAwiw+6Ay1IF+yXcebVldNX4m5IeqvG QB/o1ob1l1JFIeO+iEbUXRR3Be8jLRoNCII1o= |
| In-reply-to: | <4D8A1594.5060505@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <AANLkTi=NKxmvJx_oEpdeMtfU9ePv4ofG5PjCuh23RJ+A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D8A0A70.9030201@xxxxxxxxxx> <AANLkTi=JvL6LoL=VOrHoiQKheqzDrVwOQtWAkumzaBk5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D8A1594.5060505@xxxxxxxxxx> |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/23/11 10:33 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 3/23/11 9:36 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've been running xfstests on ext4 and I always get annoying failures to >>>>> umount: >>>>> >>>>> 213 8s ... 31s >>>>> umount: /mnt/test/ext4: device is busy. >>>>> (In some cases useful info about processes that use >>>>> the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1)) >>>>> >>>>> post 198 mostly fails to umount as well. >>>>> and post 124 always fails to umount. USE_REMOUNT=1 fixes (bypasses) the problem for non scratch tests, so I'm good with it for now :-) Amir. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim, Avi Kivity |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: optimize AGFL refills, Alex Elder |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfstests: failure to umount ext4, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] xfstests 249: use -F option for xfs_io, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |