xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:42:04 -0600
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, Mitsuo Hayasaka <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120222182832.076759206@xxxxxxx>
References: <20120222182713.040087240@xxxxxxx> <20120222182832.076759206@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
On 2/22/12 12:27 PM, Ben Myers wrote:

> With Mitsuo Hayasaka's kernel patch "xfs: change available ranges of softlimit
> and hardlimit in quota check", xfs quota behavior is slightly different.
> 
> This needs to be reflected in test 050.  The new behavior is that we only 
> start
> the timer when we're above soft inode quota, and we don't start the timer when
> we're at or below.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> Index: xfstests/050.out
> ===================================================================
> --- xfstests.orig/050.out
> +++ xfstests/050.out
> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ realtime =RDEV extsz=XXX blocks=XXX, rte
>  
>  *** push past the soft block limit
>  [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] 3 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------]
> -[NAME] 140 100 500 00 [7 days] 4 4 10 00 [7 days] 0 0 0 00 [--------]
> +[NAME] 140 100 500 00 [7 days] 4 4 10 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------]

...


Hm, but now old kernels would fail.

Maybe it's better to go 1 past the limit in the test, rather than meet it, and 
then it'd fail on both old & new kernels?

-Eric

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