xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 6/9] xfstests: add a new test that runs fsstress under ENOSPC

To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] xfstests: add a new test that runs fsstress under ENOSPC conditions
From: David Sterba <dave@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:01:48 +0100
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, aelder@xxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87sjm0kqjk.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>, dave@xxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, aelder@xxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <1320342953-7973-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> <1320342953-7973-6-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111107132533.GP12759@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87sjm0kqjk.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: dave@xxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 05:31:11PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > 269      [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see 269.out.bad)
> > --- 269.out     2011-11-07 13:26:23.000000000 +0100
> > +++ 269.out.bad 2011-11-07 14:07:44.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -3,3 +3,4 @@
> >  Run fsstress
> > 
> >  Run dd writers in parallel
> > +./269: line 60: kill: (9754) - No such process
> > 
> > > + wait $pid
> > > +}
> > 
> > and the test is reported to fail. Seems that the dd commands finish in less 
> > 2
> > seconds.
> Have you recompile fsstress via make?

That was it, thanks.

david

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>