| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfstest failures |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 7 Nov 2013 05:27:39 -0800 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <527B948C.9060905@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20131106105451.GA31283@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131106161825.GU1935@xxxxxxx> <527A887F.2030807@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20131107081710.GC25157@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <527B948C.9060905@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 07:24:28AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 11/7/13, 2:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:20:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> that's right, it's a known bug w/ a testcase but no fix yet. > >> > >> I looked a bit, but ugh, xfsdump. > > > > Maybe it's time you come up with an xfail mechanism at least? > > What's the proposal there, a "fail" group for things known to still > fail everywhere? > > so i.e. ./check -x fail ? I can easily send a patch for that if > that's what folks want. A mechnism to annotate a test as xfail, so that check would output them at the end ala: Expected failures: common/263 Unexpected successes: reiser4/001 |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfstest failures, Mark Tinguely |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfstest failures, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfstest failures, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfstest failures, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |