Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:16:45 -0500 (EST)
From:   Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To:     Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        lkp@lists.01.org, ltp@lists.linux.it,
        DavidHowells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        AlViro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <975334005.11814790.1573625805426.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <e38bc7a8505571bbb750fc0198ec85c892ac7b3a.camel@themaw.net>
References: <20191111010022.GH29418@shao2-debian> <3fb8b1b04dd7808b45caf5262ee629c09c71e0b6.camel@themaw.net> <1108442397.11662343.1573560143066.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20191112120818.GA8858@lst.de> <5f758be455bb8f761d028ea078b3e2a618dfd4b1.camel@themaw.net> <e38bc7a8505571bbb750fc0198ec85c892ac7b3a.camel@themaw.net>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [xfs] 73e5fff98b: kmsg.dev/zero:Can't_open_blockdev
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Topic: 73e5fff98b: kmsg.dev/zero:Can't_open_blockdev
Thread-Index: AzWavxd/8PGGbt3Ud1LytMdxvpbGqQ==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


----- Original Message -----
> > > > # mount -t xfs /dev/zero /mnt/xfs
> >=20
> > Assuming that is what is being done ...
>=20
> Arrrh, of course, a difference between get_tree_bdev() and
> mount_bdev() is that get_tree_bdev() prints this message when
> blkdev_get_by_path() fails whereas mount_bdev() doesn't.
>=20
> Both however do return an error in this case so the behaviour
> is the same.
>=20
> So I'm calling this not a problem with the subject patch.
>=20
> What needs to be done to resolve this in ltp I don't know?

I think that's question for kernel test robot, which has this extra
check built on top. ltp itself doesn't treat this extra message as FAIL.

Jan