From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:59550 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751097Ab3IHBcH (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Sep 2013 21:32:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:32:03 -0600 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adds verify_only option. Message-ID: <20130908013203.GJ31170@kernel.dk> References: <1378437152-11128-1-git-send-email-jcasse@chromium.org> <5229EACA.7090009@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: fio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: fio@vger.kernel.org To: Juan Casse Cc: Juan Casse , Grant Grundler , "fio@vger.kernel.org" On Fri, Sep 06 2013, Juan Casse wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > ... > > Please take a look at how this is done for the experimental_verify. The > > writes are skipped much sooner and generically, there's no need to > > enforce any sort of specific IO engine or verify type. > > From your reply I understood that you want to skip do_io() all > together and call a function that will somehow replicate the workload > and compute the numberio for each block. Is that what you meant? Yes, you want the logic to be in the realm of do_verify(). See the experimental verify. It basically rewinds the various random/lfsr dials and replays, skips writes, etc. > My patch uses do_io() to initialize the vhdr_meta data structures. I > can try to replicate that in do_verify() instead, but that seems more > fragile. Honestly, at this point, not sure what change you are trying to accomplish there... But if you send your suggested change, I'll take a look and comment. If not, please step back a bit and explain to me exactly which logic you are looking for. I think that will help both of us and will get us to a better place on the implementation and changes. -- Jens Axboe