On 11/30/12 10:06 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> This will cause the $SCRATCH_DEV to be fscked if it
>> was used in the prior test. Without this I don't
>> think it gets done unless specifically requested
>> by the test.
> This one looks good.
Hm now that I think of it perhaps I should remove the explicit
_check_scratch-es if they happen at the end of the run, just to try to speed
>> Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck
>> doesn't complain.
> This one I can't make any sense of. Care to send it separately with a
> good explanation?
Basically, test does an rm -rf of the scrach mnt, but e2fsck thinks that a
missing lost+found/ is cause for complaint and a failure exit code, which then
stops the tests :(
(hum, now that I think about it, maybe a broken scratch device shouldn't stop
the test series, but should just log a test failure? What do you think?)