xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v3] xfstests: btrfs/316: cross-subvolume sparse copy

To: Eric Sandeen <esandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfstests: btrfs/316: cross-subvolume sparse copy
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:37:24 +1000
Cc: Koen De Wit <koen.de.wit@xxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <6B93E4A6-D1C9-4170-8E1C-B94D24F601BB@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51D29D17.3050000@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130702101539.GC14996@dastard> <51D2E33B.1080402@xxxxxxxxxx> <6B93E4A6-D1C9-4170-8E1C-B94D24F601BB@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:51:21AM -0400, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Koen De Wit <koen.de.wit@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> > 
> > Thanks for the review. I will clean up the commit message and do
> > a full mail-to-myself-and-test-patch round trip to avoid errors
> > like the wrong test numbers in the golden output. I'm sorry for
> > this.
> > 
> > About cutting out file names from the output. I did this in the
> > first version of the patch:
> > 
> >       md5sum $TESTDIR1/$F | $AWK_PROG 'END {print $1}'
> > 
> > but Eric Sandeen suggested to include them in order to provide
> > more context in the output. (See
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00231.html and
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00220.html) That
> > sounds like a good idea to me, it makes debugging failures
> > easier. Whose opinion should I follow?
> > 
> Heh sorry.  IMHO maybe a middle ground; not bare md5sum but show
> only the base name?  In the end up to you; it seems Dave and I
> have different opinions on this.  :)

I was just going by current xfstests convention. i.e, in common/rc:

# Prints the md5 checksum of a given file
_md5_checksum()
{
        md5sum $1 | cut -d ' ' -f1
}

Which is used by all the hole punch tests and generic/311.

Make of that what you will, but I'd prefer to see consistency of
implementation across tests... ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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