xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel

To: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel
From: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:47:29 +1000 (EST)
Cc: "David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>, "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs-oss" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <D59801BCA402F5418C040937230AF7E00B9A8E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx om>
References: <D59801BCA402F5418C040937230AF7E00B9A8E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-4.el4.centos
>> From: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
>> David Chinner
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:56 PM
>> To: Eric Sandeen
>> Cc: xfs-oss
>> Subject: Re: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel
> ...
>> mmap dirties entire pages. page size differs between platforms -
>> ia64 = 16k, x86 = 4k - so the size of the extent allocated is
>> different. Guess what platform I wrote the test on and use as my
>> primary platform?
>>
>> The output needs better filtering, methinks.
>
> Could the test be changed so the output is pagesize independent
> rather than filtering the output?  Or maybe the test should
> use a buffer size that's the LCM of all supported page sizes.
>

FWIW, xfs-cmds/xfstests/src/feature.c will tell you the page size (-s);
with that you can accurately filter the output and not lose any info.

cheers.

--
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>