Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCC9C433FE for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 17:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242473AbiAERoq (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2022 12:44:46 -0500 Received: from smtp.hosts.co.uk ([85.233.160.19]:23576 "EHLO smtp.hosts.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242461AbiAERok (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2022 12:44:40 -0500 Received: from host81-132-12-162.range81-132.btcentralplus.com ([81.132.12.162] helo=[192.168.1.218]) by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1n5AKx-0000lW-FP; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 17:44:36 +0000 Message-ID: <96d9e6d4-16e5-6bfe-fc5a-7d0dfbaeadf0@youngman.org.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 17:44:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Subject: Re: mdadm regression tests fail Content-Language: en-GB To: Randy Dunlap , Bruce Dubbs , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Douglas R. Reno" , Pierre Labastie References: <45492ddd-42f1-674f-af27-5e0a0aace8c9@infradead.org> From: Wols Lists In-Reply-To: <45492ddd-42f1-674f-af27-5e0a0aace8c9@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bear in mind raid superblock v0.9 is deprecated as in "if it breaks it won't be fixed for you". So I would skip this test, and if you're mentioning raid in the handbook, tell people they need to use one of the v1.x formats. (NB - you can always point them at the linux raid wiki.) Cheers, Wol On 05/01/2022 17:12, Randy Dunlap wrote: > Hi. > [adding linux-raid mailing list] > > > On 1/4/22 10:55, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> I am trying to document the mdadm-4.2 installation procedures for our book, >> https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/mdadm.html >> >> For testing, I am doing a simple: >> >>   make >>   sudo ./test --keep-going --logdir=test-logs --save-logs >> >> But I get failures for about half the tests. >> >> Digging in a bit I just ran: >> >>  sudo ./test --tests=00raid0 --logdir=test-logs >> >> This is the first test that fails.  With some hacking, it appears that the first portion of this test that fails is: >> >>   mdadm -CR $md0 -e0.90 -l0 -n4 $dev0 $dev1 $dev2 $dev3 >> >> This resolves to >> >>   mdadm -CR /dev/md0 -e0.90 -l0 -n4 /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop2 /dev/loop3 >> >> There is not a lot of error output in the test, so I manually ran: >> >>   dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/mdtest0 count=20000 bs=1K >>   losetup /dev/loop0 /tmp/mdtest0 >> >> For /dev/loop[0123] >> >> Then I ran >> >>   mdadm -CR /dev/md0 -e0.90 -l0 -n4 /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop2 /dev/loop3 >>   mdadm: 0.90 metadata does not support layouts for RAID0 >> >> My question is whether the regression tests in the tarball are valid for mdadm-4.2? >> >>   -- Bruce Dubbs >>      linuxfromscratch.org >> >> Note: The kernel is version 5.15.12. >