Closed GabyCT closed 3 years ago
Thanks for the report @GabyCT - are you going to dig into those to work out why they fail?
@grahamwhaley yes, I will take a look
While running the conformance tests with runc
no failures were found. However, if we run with kata
but using devicemapper
we only have 2 failures
Test Summary Report
-------------------
./tests/chown/00.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 1323 Failed: 0)
TODO passed: 693, 697, 708-709, 714-715, 729, 733
./tests/symlink/03.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed: 2)
Failed tests: 1-2
Files=232, Tests=8789, 181 wallclock secs ( 1.48 usr 0.36 sys + 21.71 cusr 10.53 csys = 34.08 CPU)
Result: FAIL
Just to be clear then, we are noting that 9pfs has a lot more failures than devicemapper, yes? (which, is not unexpected I think, and possibly not something we can do too much about ;-) )
Yes, overlay2
has 34 failures and devicemapper
only 2 failures
Hi @GabyCT - a few questions:
@jodh-intel , I already submitted a PR https://github.com/kata-containers/tests/pull/815 :)
@GabyCT - thanks!
While running the posix filesystem conformance tests (https://github.com/pjd/pjdfstest), we are getting the following errors
This is the setup that I am using: