From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:63057 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750741Ab3D3Hih (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:38:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:38:33 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Josef Bacik Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests 311: test fsync with dm flakey V3 Message-ID: <20130430073833.GI23072@dastard> References: <1367003639-17621-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1367003639-17621-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 03:13:59PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > This test sets up a dm flakey target and then runs my fsync tester I've been > using to verify btrfs's fsync() is working properly. It will create a dm flakey > device, mount it, run my test, make the flakey device start dropping writes, and > then unmount the fs. Then we mount it back up and make sure the md5sums match > and then run fsck on the device to make sure we got a consistent fs. I used the > output from a run on BTRFS since it's the only one that passes this test > properly. I verified each test manually to make sure they were in fact valid > files. XFS and Ext4 both fail this test in one way or another. Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik > --- > V2->V3: > -encorporate all of Dave Chinners feedback > -expand the testing to run the tests with normal dmsetup suspend and with > --nolockfs I haven't tested the new version yet, but all the changes I asked for look good now. Acked-by: Dave Chinner Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com