| To: | "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: v2 xfs directory unbalance assert test |
| From: | Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:43:20 -0500 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <CAJzLF9kacDY3gu7moxfFDRMTCxjQOzp_574Ojagk-kvNySedfg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20130917192538.230164044@xxxxxxx> <CAJzLF9kacDY3gu7moxfFDRMTCxjQOzp_574Ojagk-kvNySedfg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0 |
On 09/18/13 11:36, Michael L. Semon wrote: Looks good. I tried it on an 11-GB partition with an unpatched git kernel 3.12.0 + xfs-oss/master, coupled with the latest git xfsprogs. It took a reasonable amount of time, relatively speaking. It put forth the error I was expecting, and a new 32-bit core is available upon your request but not uploaded yet. As for the assert itself, according to kgdb, these are the first, last, and BBTOB(bp->b_length) numbers for this run: 1544 4591 4096 Good work! Michael Thanks for the feedback.last > BBTOB(bp->b_length) was also true for the longer version of the test. The only difference is that it happens earlier in the remove. I take a closer look at the code. --Mark. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: v2 xfs directory unbalance assert test, Michael L. Semon |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: push down inactive transaction mgmt for remote symlinks, Brian Foster |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: v2 xfs directory unbalance assert test, Michael L. Semon |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: v2 xfs directory unbalance assert test, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |