| To: | Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: smaller mkfs.xfs |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 05 Sep 2001 10:02:47 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20010904043952.V14519@plato.local.lan> <20010905104700.E324361@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20010904160632.I14519@plato.local.lan> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Ethan Benson wrote: > yes 2.95.4 is whats there now.. is there any kind of regression > testing i can do to see if any bugs are introduced by -Os ? There is a suite of tests under cmd/xfstests, edit common.config for your machine, and then just run ./check 0?? - none of this is specifically designed to test -0s, but it will make filesystems and check them in various ways... it would be a place to start, in any case. -Eric -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | On RAID, inode size, stripe size (was: Playing around with NFS+XFS), Federico Sevilla III |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: smaller mkfs.xfs, Ethan Benson |
| Next by Thread: | root mount mislabled.., Joseph Southwell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |