xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: btrfs/004: fix to make test really work

To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: btrfs/004: fix to make test really work
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:22:06 +0800
Cc: Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <52F925EA.20600@xxxxxx>
References: <1392034256-2412-1-git-send-email-wangshilong1991@xxxxxxxxx> <52F925EA.20600@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130612 Thunderbird/17.0.6
Hi Josef,

On 02/11/2014 03:18 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:


On 02/10/2014 07:10 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

So i was wandering why test 004 could pass my previous wrong
kernel patch while it defenitely should not.

By some debugging, i found here perl script is wrong, we did not
filter out anything and this unit test did not work acutally.so
it came out we will never fail this test.


So now with this patch I'm failing it, is there some btrfs patch I need to make it not fail or is it still not supposed to fail normally and is this patch broken? Thanks,
You should not have updated my previous patch(Btrfs: switch to btrfs_previous_extent_item()) when you fail this test. I update your latest btrfs-next which has updated my previous patch and it can pass this case, did you miss that?

Thanks,
Wang

Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


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