xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add a new test case for ext4 indirect-based fil

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add a new test case for ext4 indirect-based file
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:06:30 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51494B26.6020204@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1363683183-7392-1-git-send-email-wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx> <51489267.7080202@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130320054555.GB4017@xxxxxxxxx> <51494B26.6020204@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:37:42AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/20/13 12:45 AM, Zheng Liu wrote:
> >>> +f6aeca13ec49e5b266cd1c913cd726e3
> >>> > > +     12. unwritten -> data -> unwritten
> >> > 
> >> > It's a little odd that the output contains "unwritten" when this test
> >> > is explicitly for testing *without* unwritten extents.  Should this be
> >> > cleaned up a little in common.punch, maybe?
> > I will try to define a new function called _test_indirect_punch() to
> > test punching hole without unwritten extent.
> 
> It's just the helper which prints "unwritten" regardless of what
> is passed as "$alloc_cmd" to _test_generic_punch, right... so there's
> nothing wrong with the test, really - it's just odd output.
> 
> I'm not sure it's worth a big copy & paste just to change
> the output text, but if you can think of something simple to clean
> it up, it might be worth it.

No, definitely not worth duplicating code. In fact, seeing as it's
just informational output, I'd be inclined to ignore it as it's
never going to cause the test to fail.

This is one of the reasons I tend not to like these "pretty output"
lines in the actual test output. If you need more verbose
information for debugging, that's what $seq.full is for....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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