All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Cc: Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: btrfs/004: fix to make test really work
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:22:06 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52F97B3E.9060608@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52F925EA.20600@fb.com>

Hi Josef,

On 02/11/2014 03:18 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>
> On 02/10/2014 07:10 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> So i was wandering why test 004 could pass my previous wrong
>> kernel patch while it defenitely should not.
>>
>> By some debugging, i found here perl script is wrong, we did not
>> filter out anything and this unit test did not work acutally.so
>> it came out we will never fail this test.
>>
>
> So now with this patch I'm failing it, is there some btrfs patch I 
> need to make it not fail or is it still not supposed to fail normally 
> and is this patch broken?  Thanks,
You should not have updated my previous patch(Btrfs: switch to 
btrfs_previous_extent_item()) when you fail this test.
I update your latest btrfs-next which has updated my previous patch and 
it can pass this case, did you miss that?

Thanks,
Wang
>
> Josef
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Cc: Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: btrfs/004: fix to make test really work
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:22:06 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52F97B3E.9060608@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52F925EA.20600@fb.com>

Hi Josef,

On 02/11/2014 03:18 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>
> On 02/10/2014 07:10 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> So i was wandering why test 004 could pass my previous wrong
>> kernel patch while it defenitely should not.
>>
>> By some debugging, i found here perl script is wrong, we did not
>> filter out anything and this unit test did not work acutally.so
>> it came out we will never fail this test.
>>
>
> So now with this patch I'm failing it, is there some btrfs patch I 
> need to make it not fail or is it still not supposed to fail normally 
> and is this patch broken?  Thanks,
You should not have updated my previous patch(Btrfs: switch to 
btrfs_previous_extent_item()) when you fail this test.
I update your latest btrfs-next which has updated my previous patch and 
it can pass this case, did you miss that?

Thanks,
Wang
>
> Josef
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2014-02-11  1:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-10 12:10 [PATCH] xfstests: btrfs/004: fix to make test really work Wang Shilong
2014-02-10 12:10 ` Wang Shilong
2014-02-10 19:18 ` Josef Bacik
2014-02-10 19:18   ` Josef Bacik
2014-02-11  1:22   ` Wang Shilong [this message]
2014-02-11  1:22     ` Wang Shilong
2014-02-11  2:01     ` Josef Bacik
2014-02-11  2:01       ` Josef Bacik
2014-02-10 21:39 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-10 21:39   ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-11  1:24   ` Wang Shilong
2014-02-11  1:24     ` Wang Shilong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=52F97B3E.9060608@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=jbacik@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wangshilong1991@gmail.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
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.