Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] xfstests: btrfs/134: add test for incremental send which renames a directory already being deleted

Filipe Manana
2017-01-19T12:12:15Z

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:52 AM, robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote:
> Hi Eryu Guan,
>
> Yes, it need apply
> [PATCH] "Btrfs: incremental send, do not skip generation inconsistency check
> for inode 256."
> and test again, it will failed.
>
> because current code there is a problem, but just will not happen.

Then it's not a problem...
What your're saying is confusing to say the least.

I really don't like the idea of adding a patch that is know to
introduce a regression and then adding another patch that fixes it.
Anyway, your patchset has been reviewed and those patches are not
needed anymore as there's a better solution that doesn't imply
introducing a regression temporarily, so this test is not really
needed.

thanks

>
> Thansk
> Robbie Ko
>
> Eryu Guan 於 2016-11-01 15:20 寫到:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0800, robbieko wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com>
>>>
>>> Test that an incremental send operation dosen't work because
>>> it tries to rename a directory which is already deleted.
>>>
>>> This test exercises scenarios used to fail in btrfs and are fixed by
>>> the following patch for the linux kernel:
>>>
>>> "Btrfs: incremental send, add generation check for inode is waiting for
>>> move."
>>
>>
>> I was testing with v4.9-rc1+ kernel and btrfs-progs v4.6. Seems above
>> patch is not merged in 4.9-rc1 kernel, but test passed for me, is that
>> expected?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eryu
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
Filipe David Manana,

"People will forget what you said,
people will forget what you did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel."