(Resend with Subject line this time - how did that happen?)
> The test code still indicates that these tests are expected to fail > for udf, however the tests are actually passing successfully (at > least in my amd64 test-bed). [1] > > Have these tests been fixed (perhaps by accident)? Or, if they are > still expected to fail, do we have any other explanation of why > they're not failing? A test run I did around the same time you posted this included both fs/vfs/t_renamerace:udf_renamerace and fs/vfs/t_renamerace:udf_renamerace_dirs in the *un*expected failures output. FWIW.
Yeah, when the test is marked as "Expected failure" and no failure actually occurs, that result is considered to be a "real" failure. (Seems to me a bit confusing, but ...)
My results consistently show:
...
udf_renamerace Failed Test case was expecting a 11.448868s
failure but none were raised
udf_renamerace_dirs Failed Test case was expecting a 11.102036s
failure but none were raised
...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette | PGP Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
| Kernel Developer | | pgoyette at netbsd.org |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------