Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

[no subject]



> 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  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index