On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:14:29AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 08:34:49AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > The new 849 fails reliably on btrfs, which makes me wonder if either > > the test is doing something wrong, or the btrfs whole file clone > > behavior is broken, which wouldn't be very reasuring. I didn't have > > time to look into why it's failing yet. > > Huh. Works reliably for /me; could you send me the output from 849?
--- tests/generic/849.out 2015-12-09 15:31:50.492879152 +0000 +++ /root/xfstests/results//generic/849.out.bad 2015-12-11 00:02:25.154347175 +0000 @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ QA output created by 849 Create the original files f4820540fc0ac02750739896fe028d56 TEST_DIR/test-849/file1 -dc881c004745c49f7f4e9cc766f57bc8 TEST_DIR/test-849/file2 +eb34153e9ed1e774db28cbbe4090a449 TEST_DIR/test-849/file2 dc881c004745c49f7f4e9cc766f57bc8 TEST_DIR/test-849/file2.chk Compare against check files +file2 and file2.chk do not match -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
