| To: | Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests 100: do not use scratch |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:12:48 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1361173911-12422-1-git-send-email-lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1361173911-12422-1-git-send-email-lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 08:51:51AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > Test #100 does not use scratch device at all but it still > _require_scratch and _check_scratch_fs. This might also be a problem if > the test before this one failed and corrupted scratch partition. > > Remove the _require_scratch() and _check_scratch_fs() from the test. Actaully, I think it should be using scratch - have a look at where TEMP_DIR is located. Yeah, it's /tmp, not the scratch device. i.e. it should be using the TEST_DIR rather than tmp for building the tarball, and scratch for restoring it.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 32bit apps and inode64, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs speculative preallocation -- fragmentation issue with sparse file handling?, Brian Foster |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] xfstests 100: do not use scratch, Lukas Czerner |
| Next by Thread: | [no subject], DM & F INVESTMENT |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |