On 04/09/2015 04:27 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I tried manually running generic/019, and even though I have
> CONFIG_FAIL_MAKE_REQUEST defined, /sys/kernel/debug/fail_make_request
> isn't present, and so the test complains that I haven't compiled it
> into my kernel --- even though /proc/config.gz
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:19:45AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> Nope, I just got new servers to play with and decided to try xfstests.
>
> I can try bisection if it doesn't sound familiar, but since it's metal
> servers it'll take a while.
It's in the "dangerous" group, which may very well mean
On 04/09/2015 11:17 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:14:49AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I was running xfstests on the latest -next kernel directed at an ext4
>> > mount,
>> > and saw the following on the generic/019 test:
> Hi Sasha,
>
> This isn't a te
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:14:49AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was running xfstests on the latest -next kernel directed at an ext4 mount,
> and saw the following on the generic/019 test:
Hi Sasha,
This isn't a test I normally run; is it a test you've run in the past?
If so, do you
Hi all,
I was running xfstests on the latest -next kernel directed at an ext4 mount,
and saw the following on the generic/019 test:
[40638.238369] run fstests generic/019 at 2015-04-09 08:20:00
[40639.320440] kobject: 'sdd' (8837cd5082b0): kobject_release, parent
(null) (delayed 30
5 matches
Mail list logo
