On 04/26/2013 01:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
test 284 had... some issues.
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/284 b/tests/btrfs/284
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
index d952977..67161a3
--- a/tests/btrfs/284
+++ b/tests/btrfs/284
This patch has been committed:
commit 91f87e3b89c0f7350a56d397ba7255
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 01:45:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> test 284 had... some issues.
>
> First, it took so long nobody ran it; so shorten the extent
> count by a factor of about 100.
>
> Having fixed that, we see failures in 2 cases; when start or
> len is -1, but the golden output file d
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:19:46AM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 01:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > test 284 had... some issues.
> >
> > First, it took so long nobody ran it; so shorten the extent
> > count by a factor of about 100.
> >
> > Having fixed that, we see failures in 2 cases
On 5/14/13 10:19 AM, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 01:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> test 284 had... some issues.
>>
>> First, it took so long nobody ran it; so shorten the extent
>> count by a factor of about 100.
>>
>> Having fixed that, we see failures in 2 cases; when start or
>> len is -
On 04/26/2013 01:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
test 284 had... some issues.
First, it took so long nobody ran it; so shorten the extent
count by a factor of about 100.
Having fixed that, we see failures in 2 cases; when start or
len is -1, but the golden output file didn't have error
output, as if
test 284 had... some issues.
First, it took so long nobody ran it; so shorten the extent
count by a factor of about 100.
Having fixed that, we see failures in 2 cases; when start or
len is -1, but the golden output file didn't have error
output, as if they should pass.
I'm going to argue that th
