Hey Eric,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:42:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 2/22/12 12:27 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>
> > With Mitsuo Hayasaka's kernel patch "xfs: change available ranges of
> > softlimit
> > and hardlimit in quota check", xfs quota behavior is slightly different.
> >
> > This needs to be reflected in test 050. The new behavior is that we only
> > start
> > the timer when we're above soft inode quota, and we don't start the timer
> > when
> > we're at or below.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> > Index: xfstests/050.out
> > ===================================================================
> > --- xfstests.orig/050.out
> > +++ xfstests/050.out
> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ realtime =RDEV extsz=XXX blocks=XXX, rte
> >
> > *** push past the soft block limit
> > [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] 3 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------]
> > -[NAME] 140 100 500 00 [7 days] 4 4 10 00 [7 days] 0 0 0 00 [--------]
> > +[NAME] 140 100 500 00 [7 days] 4 4 10 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------]
>
> ...
>
>
> Hm, but now old kernels would fail.
Sure, but Mitsuo did fix a genuine off-by-one bug... ;)
> Maybe it's better to go 1 past the limit in the test, rather than meet it,
> and then it'd fail on both old & new kernels?
It is of low severity, so this seems like a reasonable middle ground.
I'll be happy to respin this patch, unless you'd prefer to.
Thanks,
Ben
|