xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Koen De Wit <koen.de.wit@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfstests: btrfs/316: cross-subvolume sparse copy
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:17:24 +1000
Cc: Eric Sandeen <esandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51D3F6CC.2040709@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51D29D17.3050000@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130702101539.GC14996@dastard> <51D2E33B.1080402@xxxxxxxxxx> <6B93E4A6-D1C9-4170-8E1C-B94D24F601BB@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130703063724.GK14996@dastard> <51D3F6CC.2040709@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 12:02:52PM +0200, Koen De Wit wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 08:37 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> That's true, but these tests generate other context information in the
> output. They don't just print a bunch of checksums.

Sure, but it's pretty trivial to work out which sum in output
belongs to which file in this test - there's only a handful of them.

>    (...)
>    file1:
>    00d620f69f30327f0f8946b95c12de44
>    e09c80c42fda55f9d992e59ca6b3307d
>    e09c80c42fda55f9d992e59ca6b3307d

That's fine.

Cheers,

Dave,
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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