* [patch 0/1] xfstests: fix test 050 @ 2012-02-22 18:27 Ben Myers 2012-02-22 18:27 ` [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050 Ben Myers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Ben Myers @ 2012-02-22 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Ben Myers, Mitsuo Hayasaka, Mark Tinguely, xfs Hey Christoph, Golden output for test 050 changed.Next time I'll remember to fix the test before updating oss/master... Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050 2012-02-22 18:27 [patch 0/1] xfstests: fix test 050 Ben Myers @ 2012-02-22 18:27 ` Ben Myers 2012-03-08 22:42 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-03-31 20:12 ` [patch 1/1] 050: update inode softlimit output Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Ben Myers @ 2012-02-22 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Ben Myers, Mitsuo Hayasaka, Mark Tinguely, xfs [-- Attachment #1: xfstests-fix-050-after-20f12d8 --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1927 bytes --] 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@sgi.com> 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 [--------] *** push past the hard inode limit (expect EDQUOT) [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] 3 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------] @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ 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 [--------] *** push past the hard inode limit (expect EDQUOT) [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] 3 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------] @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ 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 [--------] *** push past the hard inode limit (expect EDQUOT) [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] 3 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------] _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050 2012-02-22 18:27 ` [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050 Ben Myers @ 2012-03-08 22:42 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-03-09 2:17 ` Ben Myers 2012-03-31 20:12 ` [patch 1/1] 050: update inode softlimit output Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-03-08 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Myers; +Cc: xfs, Mitsuo Hayasaka, Christoph Hellwig, Mark Tinguely 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@sgi.com> > 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. 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? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050 2012-03-08 22:42 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2012-03-09 2:17 ` Ben Myers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Ben Myers @ 2012-03-09 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs, Mitsuo Hayasaka, Christoph Hellwig, Mark Tinguely 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@sgi.com> > > 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 1/1] 050: update inode softlimit output 2012-02-22 18:27 ` [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050 Ben Myers 2012-03-08 22:42 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2012-03-31 20:12 ` Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2012-03-31 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Myers; +Cc: xfs, Mitsuo Hayasaka, Christoph Hellwig, Mark Tinguely Thanks, applied. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-03-31 20:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-02-22 18:27 [patch 0/1] xfstests: fix test 050 Ben Myers 2012-02-22 18:27 ` [patch 1/1] xfstests: update inode softlimit output in 050 Ben Myers 2012-03-08 22:42 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-03-09 2:17 ` Ben Myers 2012-03-31 20:12 ` [patch 1/1] 050: update inode softlimit output Christoph Hellwig
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.