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:

quoted

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

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs