|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>|
|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.
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.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH 03/10] xfstests: hardcode fops for determinable fsstests runs, Rich Johnston|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfstest: allow fsstress to use load factor where appropriate, Rich Johnston|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH 03/10] xfstests: hardcode fops for determinable fsstests runs, Rich Johnston|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfstest: allow fsstress to use load factor where appropriate, Rich Johnston|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|