xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: split mapped writes vs direct I/O tests from 0

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: split mapped writes vs direct I/O tests from 091
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:40:10 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20111010182216.GA1335@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20111010182156.GA1323@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111010182216.GA1335@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:22:16PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This effectively reverts
> 
>       xfstests: add mapped write fsx operations to 091
> 
> and adds a new test case for it.  It tests something slightly different, and
> regressions in existing tests due to new features are pretty nasty in a
> test suite.

Makes sense.

> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> 
> Index: xfstests-dev/263
> ===================================================================
> --- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
> +++ xfstests-dev/263  2011-10-10 18:06:59.000000000 +0000
> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> +#! /bin/bash
> +# FS QA Test No. 263
> +#
> +# fsx exercising direct IO vs sub-block buffered I/O
> +#
> +#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> +# Copyright (c) 2000-2004 Silicon Graphics, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
> +#
> +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> +# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> +# published by the Free Software Foundation.
> +#
> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful,
> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> +# GNU General Public License for more details.
> +#
> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> +# along with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation,
> +# Inc.,  51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
> +#
> +#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> +#
> +# creator
> +owner=nathans@xxxxxxx

No point keeping an invalid email address as the owner of a new
test.

FWIW, I'm considering removing this from the tests as the
information is in the commit history, and the use of the field
(emailing the owner when the automated test infrastructure SGI used
10 years ago failed) is no longer used...

Otherwise looks OK.

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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