[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] Count journal size in test 289

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Count journal size in test 289
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:37:45 -0500
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5149C824.8070300@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1363776648-14061-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <5149C824.8070300@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
On 03/20/2013 09:31 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 3/20/13 5:50 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
Test 289 ignored the fact that historically journal is not accounted as
fs overhead in ext3. For larger filesystems it is hidden in 1% tolerance
but for filesystems smaller than 12G the test fails. So make the
counting precise to work everywhere.

CC: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>

Looks fine, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>

p.s. - sorry, didn't catch this the first time:

_filter_size_to_bytes won't work for lowercase units, which might
be nice.  How about:

+       case $suffix in
+               k|K) mul=1024 ;;
+               m|M) mul=$((1024*1024)) ;;
+               g|G) mul=$((1024*1024*1024)) ;;
+               t|T) mul=$((1024*1024*1024*1024)) ;;
+       esac

SGI guys - maybe could do that as a small fix-up on commit.  Otherwise, if 
ever needs lower case they could just add it at the same time, so no big deal.

Will do thanks for the review.



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