xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests 276: use _require_no_large_scratch_dev instead of t

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests 276: use _require_no_large_scratch_dev instead of the removed _require_nobigloopfs
From: Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:19:45 +0100
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <514FD3FA.701@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <514AA503.4060101@xxxxxxxxx> <514FD3FA.701@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
On Mon, March 25, 2013 at 05:35 (+0100), Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
> On 2013å03æ21æ 14:13, Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
>> _require_nobigloopfs has been removed.
>> We should use _require_no_large_scratch_dev in the test script.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <shhuiw@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   276 |    3 +--
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/276 b/276
>> index 40b30cf..87363ca 100755
>> --- a/276
>> +++ b/276
>> @@ -58,8 +58,7 @@ _need_to_be_root
>>   _supported_fs btrfs
>>   _supported_os Linux
>>   _require_scratch
>> -
>> -_require_nobigloopfs
>> +_require_no_large_scratch_dev
>>   _require_btrfs inspect-internal
>>   _require_command "/usr/sbin/filefrag"
>>
> 
> Does anyone notice this?
> I use the upstream xfstests and failed this case for the already-removed 
> function.
> I think someone patched in but mixed the old function.
> I've send out this patch for days, but seems no one cares about it.

Noticed it, too. I'd just delete that line instead - the test doesn't depend on
scratch dev size.

Thanks,
-Jan

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