xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs/259: handle minimum block size more precisely

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/259: handle minimum block size more precisely
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:48:37 -0700
Cc: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>, fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160407213231.GD761@dastard>
References: <1460027155-4222-1-git-send-email-eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> <20160407213231.GD761@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 07:32:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > diff --git a/tests/xfs/259 b/tests/xfs/259
> > index 16c1935..3150ff3 100755
> > --- a/tests/xfs/259
> > +++ b/tests/xfs/259
> > @@ -51,9 +51,7 @@ testfile=$TEST_DIR/259.image
> >  # Test various sizes slightly less than 4 TB. Need to handle different
> >  # minimum block sizes for CRC enabled filesystems, but use a small log so 
> > we
> >  # don't write lots of zeros unnecessarily.
> > -xfs_info $TEST_DIR | _filter_mkfs 2> $tmp.mkfs > /dev/null
> > -. $tmp.mkfs
> 
> This tests the configuration of the test device, which is not
> controlled by the test harness, so can be different to the
> configuration being used for the scratch device.
> 
> > -if [ $_fs_has_crcs -eq 1 ]; then
> > +if [ $XFS_MKFS_CRC_DEFAULT -eq 1 ]; then
> 
> IOWs, this is not an not equivalent test.

And I think that's the whole point of this change :)

Previously it tested what the TEST_DIR did, which was wrong for this
test.  Now it tests what mkfs does by default (including for the scratch
dev), which is what we really want here.

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