xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: new check 278 to ensure btrfs backref integrity

from [Jan Schmidt] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: new check 278 to ensure btrfs backref integrity
From: Jan Schmidt <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:04:51 +0100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4F0485FE.8000405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1324552138-30584-1-git-send-email-list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120104163946.GA8153@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F0485FE.8000405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15 
On 04.01.2012 18:01, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 276 got merged on Dec 28 before my requests for fixup, I guess?  And it
> explicitly sets FSTYP=btrfs which is why it fails.
> 
> the 278 patch v2 in this thread works ok for me.
> 
> so munging the 278 patch here into the existing 276 should be the
> right approach.

Yeah we figured that out on irc some minutes ago :-)

I'm currently building v2 as an incremental patch to 276 (without rename
to 278) and send it as

   [PATCH] xfstests: fixup check 276

soon.

-Jan
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: new check 278 to ensure btrfs backref integrity, Eric Sandeen
Next by Date:  Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] [ATTEND] xfstests: what do we need to do to make it better?, Alex Elder
Previous by Thread:  Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: new check 278 to ensure btrfs backref integrity, Eric Sandeen
Next by Thread:  Re: Another SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE tester, Christoph Hellwig
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]