I think that is good enough. We should document the timing-related tests and try to fix them!
christos > On Mar 25, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) writes: > >> That's a good test, but how does zfs compare in for the same test with lets >> say ffs or ext2fs (filesystems that offer persistence)? > > With the same system, booted in the same way, but with 3 different > filesystems mounted on /tmp, I get similar numbers of failures: > > tmpfs 12 > ffs2 13 > zfs 18 > > So tmpfs/ffs2 are ~equal and zfs has a few more failures (but it all > looks a bit random and non-repeatable). So it's hard to sort out "zfs > is buggy" vs "some tests fail in timing-related hard-to-understand ways > and that seems provoked slightly more with /tmp on zfs". > > Did you mean something else? > > <sanitizer.log>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
