| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfstest failures |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 7 Nov 2013 04:01:57 -0800 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20131107115722.GB11434@dastard> |
| References: | <20131106105451.GA31283@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131106194417.GF6188@dastard> <20131107082234.GA30243@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131107115722.GB11434@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:57:22PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Actually, it doesn't. v4 configs give the same notrun output, which > is wrong but doesn't result in a failure (hence I didn't notice it). > Now that you've reported it I've just found a bug in the > _requires_attr_v1 function that makes it always fail and notrun the > test.... It fails for me running latests xfstests, latest xfsprogs an latest xfs tree in a x86 VM running the default mkfs options. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfstest failures, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Kind Attention !!!, Reserve Bank of India |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfstest failures, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfstest failures, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |