xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:56 -0600
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, Mitsuo Hayasaka <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4F5935BC.4050104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20120222182713.040087240@xxxxxxx> <20120222182832.076759206@xxxxxxx> <4F5935BC.4050104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Hey Eric,

On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:42:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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.

Sure, but Mitsuo did fix a genuine off-by-one bug...  ;)

> 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?

It is of low severity, so this seems like a reasonable middle ground.
I'll be happy to respin this patch, unless you'd prefer to.

Thanks,
Ben

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