[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests: SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA advanced tests

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfstests: SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA advanced tests
From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:33:49 +0800
Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121017072424.GC26797@dastard>
References: <20121016204240.142425319@xxxxxxx> <20121016204244.997819918@xxxxxxx> <20121017023439.GB26797@dastard> <507E284D.40800@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121017072424.GC26797@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
On 10/17/12 15:24, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:38:53AM +0800, Jie Liu wrote:
>> On 10/17/12 10:34, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 03:42:41PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>>>> This is the test of the advanced SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA features
>>>> of the lseek() function call.
>>>> Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote the C code, I converted it to
>>>> a test with his permission.
>>> Jie, can you sign-off on this patch as well as it has Oracle
>>> copyright statements in it?
>> Hi Dave,
>> I can sign-off this patch, but it's better to keep the copyright
>> statements with SGI for this test script since
>> it wrote by Mark, and Mark is already made the C test file as Oracle.
> The .c file has this:
> + * Copyright (C) 2011-2012 Oracle. All rights reserved.
> Which is why the patch needs your signoff.
> But if the test is redone without the .c file (i.e. SEEK_HOLE/DATA
> added to xfs_io) then it won't be necessary (unless you do that
> work :).
Ah, I see, thanks for your clarification, I'll check Mark's patch of
next revised version according to your comments, and sign it.

> Cheers,
> Dave.

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