From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: fix overly-pessimistic calculation of minimum size required Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:47:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20140428114755.GC15379@thunk.org> References: <1398566894-14576-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20140427043537.GC25172@thunk.org> <87sioxdi01.fsf@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ext4 Developers List To: Dmitry Monakhov Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:36958 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751916AbaD1Lr5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:47:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sioxdi01.fsf@openvz.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:34:54AM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > > I'm going to have to self-NACK this. This patch causes the resize2fs > > regression tests to fail. (In fact, Dmitry's original patch also > > causes the resize2fs regression tests to fail.) > > Agree, regressions are not acceptable. Can you please spacify > which tests are failed. As far as i know xfstetsts has no tests > for resize2fs. It was 2 of the tests from e2fsprogs's "make check", where off-one resize2fs regression tests belong. The xfstests suite is a good place to test on-line resize functionality, where the bulk of the code that has to function correctly is in the kernel,, but for testing functionality which is specific to e2fsprogs, it's better to test it within the context of e2fsprogs's regression tests. Anyway, the patch set I sent out fixes up the problem. - Ted