xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y
From: Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:29:21 -0400
In-reply-to: <20080904231418.GB5991@disturbed>
References: <20080825153931.GD7575@xxxxxxxxxx> <20080826020101.GU5706@disturbed> <20080903182701.GA29192@xxxxxxxxxx> <20080904231418.GB5991@disturbed>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11)
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 09:14:18AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
...
> Ah, yes. That. I think Barry can try to explain that one because:
> 
> http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/xfs-cmds/xfstests/078.out.diff?r1=1.3;r2=1.4
> 
> The test golden output was changed instead of someone understanding
> why the fixes to growfs changed the size that the filesystem was
> grown to. ISTR being opposed to changing the golden output because
> it was the wrong thing to do and would break QA on older kernels,
> not to mention that it indicated some possible off-by-one bug in
> a change that had been made at some point...
> 
> Other than that, the backport should be fine given it passed all the
> other parts of the test....

Oh, that's good news, thanks.

I just need to test the patch on a 32-bit O.S. now, but
I am having a difficult time building xfs-cmds/xfstests
on a CentOS 5 VM.

Does anyone have a recommendation for an O.S. I can use
to build and run the xfsqa test 078?  It would be running
the 2.6.16.62 kernel with the patch in question, not the
stock distro kernel.

-- 
  Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>

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