[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstest failures

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>