xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new lockin

To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new locking test
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 08:58:45 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1399907193-23857-1-git-send-email-jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1399907193-23857-1-git-send-email-jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> This patchset does some general cleanup of the locktest binary, adds
> some infrastructure to allow testing F_GETLK requests, and adds a new
> F_GETLK test to the pile.
> 
> The main impetus here is a regression that I caused in F_GETLK handling
> for v3.15. The patch is making its way to Linus now, but I want to be
> sure that it doesn't regress in the future.

So do these changes cause locktest to fail on older kernels? i.e.
does changing the test cause the locktest tests to fail where
previously they passed? If so, we're going to have to make this a
little more complex...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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