On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:22:10AM +0900, Masayoshi MIZUMA wrote:
> > test 068 will catch problems like the one your specific test
> > catches, but maybe not every time. Test 068 will catch problems your
> > test case won't, though - it's a trade-off between having lots of
> > tests that are similar but slightly different (difficult to
> > maintain, increases runtime, etc), and having one test that
> > exercises the functionality in a simple manner likely to detect
> > problems.
> Thank you for your explanation about the policy and I understand it.
> I tried to reproduce the problem not dropping the sleep, but the problem was
> not reproduced... Therefore, I dropped it and the problem was reproduced.
> However, as you mentioned, the problem is a timing proglem, so the
> my reproduction might be just by chance. Dropping sleep may increase
> the possibility of the reproduction, but not every time, so the change
> is not good. That is same for the arguments of fsstress which I changed.
> OK, I update 068 just to run other filesystem, ext3, ext4 and btrfs which
> I confirmed xfs_freeze works on.
> (xfs_freeze may work on the other filesystems which have freeze_fs/unfreeze_fs
> super_operations but I don't confirm...)
> The patch is below.
Given that MIZUMAs patch reproduces a real life issue I think adding
his original patch in addition to this change would be a good idea.
Dave, do you have a strong opinion against that?