xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfstests generic 310: fix common file path and other cle

To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfstests generic 310: fix common file path and other cleanups
From: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:29:13 +0800
Cc: zhaohongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5162CE93.7010301@xxxxxxx>
References: <1365331147-15179-1-git-send-email-eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> <1365331147-15179-3-git-send-email-eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> <5162CE93.7010301@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:05:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> Hi Eryu,
> 
> Thanks for this cleanup patch. I was going to revert patch
> "bbaf78c0" which introduced test generic/310 but will wait and see
> if Zhao will provide more information which could be added to this
> patch.

Make sense, thanks for the review.
> 
> 
> On 04/07/2013 05:39 AM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> >1. add one space between # and test description
> 
> The rest of the changes look good, sorry I missed them when I reviewed ;).
> 
> >2. remove creator/owner info
> >3. fix common/rc and common/filter path so they can be sourced correctly
> >4. no need to remove $seq.full cause it's not used(or if verbose output
> >    is needed, $seqres.full should be used)
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> >  tests/generic/310 | 12 +++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/tests/generic/310 b/tests/generic/310
> >index ef51422..35baa23 100644
> >--- a/tests/generic/310
> >+++ b/tests/generic/310
> >@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
> >  #! /bin/bash
> >  # FS QA Test No. 310
> >  #
> >-#Check if there are two threads,one keeps calling read() or lseek(), and
> >-#the other calling readdir(), both on the same directory fd.
> >+# Check if there are two threads,one keeps calling read() or lseek(), and
> >+# the other calling readdir(), both on the same directory fd.
> >  #
> 
> Hi Zhao,
> 
> I did see both threads running at the same time, but the more I look
> at this, the more I am a loss as to what this test is doing.
> 
> Will you expand this a little please.  I should have asked for more
> justification the first time I reviewed this. Please provide what
> bug
> this is testing or what failure/weakness this test exposes.  If
> there is a commit this is related to, please reference it.

I didn't look into the test deeply but I found the test seems to run for
hours on my 3.9-rc4 test box, not sure what goes wrong here.

Thanks,
Eryu
> 
> Thanks
> --Rich

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