xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests 311: test fsync with dm flakey V3

To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests 311: test fsync with dm flakey V3
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:38:33 +1000
Cc: linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1367003639-17621-1-git-send-email-jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1367003639-17621-1-git-send-email-jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 03:13:59PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> This test sets up a dm flakey target and then runs my fsync tester I've been
> using to verify btrfs's fsync() is working properly.  It will create a dm 
> flakey
> device, mount it, run my test, make the flakey device start dropping writes, 
> and
> then unmount the fs.  Then we mount it back up and make sure the md5sums match
> and then run fsck on the device to make sure we got a consistent fs.  I used 
> the
> output from a run on BTRFS since it's the only one that passes this test
> properly.  I verified each test manually to make sure they were in fact valid
> files.  XFS and Ext4 both fail this test in one way or another.  Thanks,
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> V2->V3:
> -encorporate all of Dave Chinners feedback
> -expand the testing to run the tests with normal dmsetup suspend and with
>  --nolockfs

I haven't tested the new version yet, but all the changes I asked
for look good now.

Acked-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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