Failure of test case : 250

[Amit Sahrawat]

Thanks, I will install TOT kernel and verify the behaviour on that.

Thanks & Regards,
Amit Sahrawat

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Dave Chinner <david at fromorbit.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:49:45AM +0530, Amit Sahrawat wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Test Case : 250 results in failure on x86(2.6.31.y) and ARM(2.6.35.13..)
>
> The XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO bug wasn't fixed until 3.0-rc1 (bf59170
> xfs: obey minleft values during extent allocation correctly), so of
> course you'll get that failure on .31 and .35 kernels.
>
> Amit, I'd suggest that you try to reproduce the problems you have on
> a top of tree kernel first before reporting them. Most of us XFS
> developers don't really have time to triage or solve failures on old
> kernels like 2.6.31 or 2.6.35 and so are ignoring your bug reports.
> Reporting bugs on old kernels that have since been fixed is really
> just a waste of our (limited) time. If you find a bug that isn't
> fixed on TOT, then we'll triage it and get it fixed in TOT.
>
> However, if you can't reproduce them on top of tree, then you need
> to go an find the commit (kernel, xfsprogs or xfstests) yourself
> that makes the test pass and back port it to your tree. Same for if
> we fix a bug you report in TOT - we're not going to backport the
> fixes to your trees for you. We'll review backported patches if you
> post them to the list, but we don't have time (or motivation) to do
> the backports and QA them for you.
>
> And if you are backporting to a long term stable tree, feel free to
> submit the tested backports to stable at kernel.org (cc'ing the xfs
> list so they can be reviewed, of course) so that everyone else can
> also benefit from your work....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david at fromorbit.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/attachments/20110627/70aa6f60/attachment.htm>