[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] xfstets: fsstress add replace file operation
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:43:42 -0600
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1361356935-29153-5-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1361356935-29153-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> <1361356935-29153-5-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
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.

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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [PATCH 04/10] xfstets: fsstress add replace file operation, Rich Johnston <=