xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: review: log_filter.patch 018,081,082 pv#981362

To: tes@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: review: log_filter.patch 018,081,082 pv#981362
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:41:15 +1000
Cc: xfs-dev@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48227ef3.WIWE0hYubr4nS8cD%tes@sgi.com>
References: <48227ef3.WIWE0hYubr4nS8cD%tes@sgi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:17:55PM +1000, tes@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Due to the changes for default mkfs options where we now have
> version 2 inodes, we no longer update the di_onlink field.
> To be consistent with previous output, we filter these values out.
> Also, as part of changes to the inode generation number which uses
> a random num generator, we need to filter out the gen# too.
> 
> --Tim
> 
>  018.op.irix             |  400 +++++++++++------------
>  018.op.linux            |  400 +++++++++++------------
>  018.trans_inode         |  800 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  081.ugquota.trans_inode |  816 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  082.op.irix             |  400 +++++++++++------------
>  082.op.linux            |  400 +++++++++++------------
>  082.trans_inode         |  800 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  common.log              |    3 
>  8 files changed, 2011 insertions(+), 2008 deletions(-)

Worth noting is that these tests all still fail on a config that
corrects a problem with the superblock features2 field on mount.

Probably not worth bothering about - but I thought I'd mention it
as updating the tests didn't fix the failure on my machine. Updating
xfsprogs now....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group


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