| Message ID | 160013428386.2923511.798805055641192515.stgit@magnolia (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | fstests: tons of random fixes | expand |
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 06:44:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > Use _scratch_xfs_check, not _xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > --- Good to me, Reviewed-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> > tests/xfs/291 | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/291 b/tests/xfs/291 > index 8a4b1354..adef2536 100755 > --- a/tests/xfs/291 > +++ b/tests/xfs/291 > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ done > _scratch_unmount > # Can xfs_repair and xfs_check cope with this monster? > _scratch_xfs_repair >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair failed" > -_xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed" > +_scratch_xfs_check >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed" > > # Yes they can! Now... > # Can xfs_metadump cope with this monster? >
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 06:44:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > Use _scratch_xfs_check, not _xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV. This looks ok: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> But shouldn't we finally kill off all xfs_check alls instead? :)
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 08:58:56AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 06:44:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > > > Use _scratch_xfs_check, not _xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV. > > This looks ok: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > But shouldn't we finally kill off all xfs_check alls instead? :) I will some day, but I keep finding more bugs and missed stuff in xfs_repair. :( --D
diff --git a/tests/xfs/291 b/tests/xfs/291 index 8a4b1354..adef2536 100755 --- a/tests/xfs/291 +++ b/tests/xfs/291 @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ done _scratch_unmount # Can xfs_repair and xfs_check cope with this monster? _scratch_xfs_repair >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair failed" -_xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed" +_scratch_xfs_check >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed" # Yes they can! Now... # Can xfs_metadump cope with this monster?