Thank you for reviewing my patch.
I ran the test using btrfs progs v0.19(OpenSuse 12.3) previously and got a fail
I verified v3.12 this morning and it work well as you mentioned.
Althouth the new version doesn't have this problem, I think it would be better
to fix this.
I'll fix the titile and resend it.
On 2014/2/24 19:02, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hi Zhang,
> On 02/24/2014 06:51 PM, ZhangZhen wrote:
>> The test 013 couldn't work because here lacked "start".
>> This patch fix it.
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen<zhenzhang.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> tests/btrfs/013 | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/013 b/tests/btrfs/013
>> index 7620fcc..fb81663 100644
>> --- a/tests/btrfs/013
>> +++ b/tests/btrfs/013
>> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ _check_csum_error()
>> $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "falloc 0 1M" -c "pwrite 16k 8k" -c "fsync" \
>> $SCRATCH_MNT/foo > $seqres.full 2>&1
>> -$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
>> +$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance start $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1
>> || \
>> _fail "balance failed"
> Due to historical reasons, we have 'btrfs file balance <>'.. Until now, it is
> ok to run 'btrfs file balance <mnt>', and it has equal effect as 'btrfs
> filesystem balance start'.
> Anyway, using latest 'btrfs file balance start <mnt>' is better than previous
> codes..but patch's
> title is not right any more...
> BTW,Dave Chinner previously pointed out that we need a cleanup, url can be