Re: [PATCH 04/10] xfstets: fsstress add replace file operation

[Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>]

On 02/20/2013 04:42 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> The most common usecase for rename(2) syscall is an atomic replacement
> of existing file with newer version. But rename_f() rename some existing
> filename to newly generated (non existing) filename. As result the most
> important usecase is not covered.
Good catch.

> Since rename_f() is already exist in fsstress and it has known behavior,
> some tests already depends on that behaviour, let's add another operation
> (replace_f) which invoke rename(2) for two existing entries.
> OUT_OF_COMMIT_DISCUSSION:
> Off course replace_f() break naming convention where fun_name == syscall_f(),
> but this is the only way I see to introduce new feature and not break
> other tests. May be it is reasonable to call it rename2_f() ?
I think this possible exposes a bug which was not exposed by before when 
running for example test 076 and test 083 on both ext4 and xfs.
Suggest this new function is called rename2_() so that we don't change 
the existing known tests.
Regards
--Rich