xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Anyone have test cases for SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA?

To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Anyone have test cases for SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:20:15 -0500
Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120918181556.GC28689@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <nsxa9wojdcd.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120918064039.GS11511@dastard> <50588898.6050802@xxxxxxx> <20120918181556.GC28689@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
On 9/18/12 1:15 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:43:36AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> xfstest 285 and 286 (I believe these tests were only in the OSS
>> version and not in the kernel.org developers version of xfstests).
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Could you clarify what the relationship is between the OSS xfstests
> tree and the one on kernel.org?  Is the OSS tree always ahead of the
> kernel.org tree (i.e., are the commits in the OSS tree a superset of
> the ones in the kernel.org tree)?
> 
> I had been under the impression that commits flowed from the
> kernel.org tree to the OSS tree, but it sounds like I was misinformed
> on that point?

That was more or less correct at one point, but we recently decided to
ditch the kernel.org repos and let sgi manage a single repo on oss.sgi.com
going forward, just to simplify things.

We just reached that agreement and haven't really communicated it yet
I guess.

So going forward, stick with the one on oss.sgi.com.

Thanks,
-Eric

> Thanks,
> 
>                                               - Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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