[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests: more 214 updates

To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfstests: more 214 updates
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:03:13 -0500
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <508ABF90.6080102@xxxxxxx>
References: <4B4D02E5.7040306@xxxxxxxxxx> <508ABF90.6080102@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
On 10/26/12 11:51 AM, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 05:16 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> A few more updates for the 214 fallocate test, since
>> ext4 is having some fallocate trouble these days.
>> First off, updated 214.out was missing from the previous
>> commit to this file.
>> Second, run each test against a new filename and don't
>> remove it, so that the post-test fs check will have
>> more work to do.
>> Third, and a newly-found corruption case for ext4.
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/214 b/214
>> index a71680a..0cfb23e 100755
>> --- a/214
>> +++ b/214
> Looks good
> Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
> Eric,
> This patch has been committed to git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests, master 
> branch, commit ID e2e226715.
> Thanks
> --Rich

Rich, I appreciate you guys searching for lost patches.

I think we need to be very careful about grabbing 2yo changes off the list and 
applying them to today's tree; if you have any questions at all about anything, 
please don't hesitate to bring up a question on the list.

TBH I forgot most of these still existed ;)

Just as an example: hopefully the new test case on this change doesn't cause 
214 to start failing on any fs?  We usually try to not change tests to add new 
failure cases if the test passed before.  If it's passing on all filesystems 
today, it's probably fine to add the case.  If not, it should probably be moved 
to a new test.


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