From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:63682 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751343AbbF2SId (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:08:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add a test of replace missing dev in diff raid References: <1435296063-10695-1-git-send-email-wangyf-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150626222409.GA27386@huxley.DHCP.TheFacebook.com> <55910C42.7030707@cn.fujitsu.com> From: Omar Sandoval Message-ID: <5591893B.2020309@fb.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:06:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55910C42.7030707@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: wangyf Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/29/2015 02:13 AM, wangyf wrote: > Hello, Omar: > > To update some cases to support RAID5/6 is necessary. > Like btrfs/011 btrfs/071 , and the man page of BTRFS-REPLACE, > they all should be modified. > > But equipment damage and missing device is small probability event when > we use disks in our daily life. So it shouldn't be so important that we let > _btrfs_get_profile_confilgs know it. > Besides, every case tests a different direction of replace is good. e.g. > 011 071 020 etc. > > So I think to test it in a new case is better. What is your opinion? > > cheers, > wangyf Hi, Yanfeng, Sorry, I think I might have been unclear. I definitely agree that the missing case should be tested in a separate test case. However, I do think that _btrfs_get_profile_configs should be updated so we can keep things in one place and make sure that all profiles are thoroughly tested. With _btrfs_get_profile_configs aware of RAID 5/6 and missing device replacement, the new test case can just make use of that instead of hardcoding the profiles to test. Does that sound alright? Thanks! -- Omar