* [PATCH 00/11] xfstests: rework src/randholes.c
@ 2010-10-14 14:49 Alex Elder
2010-10-16 5:13 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alex Elder @ 2010-10-14 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs
Dave's recent "dynamic speculative EOF preallocation" changes
caused test 008 to no longer produce the kinds of holes it was
expecting to see, so it got me looking at the program it uses,
"src/randholes.c".
Since 008 is the only test using this program, it probably
doesn't deserve the attention I gave it yesterday, but I've
done the work so I might as well submit the series for
review and get my changes in.
The first patch in the series actually addresses two things
that are bugs.
The remaining 10 are just cleanup and refactoring changes.
Other than two bug fix changes and one change in output
when running in very-verbose mode, the patched code should
be pretty much functionally identical to before.
-Alex
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 00/11] xfstests: rework src/randholes.c
2010-10-14 14:49 [PATCH 00/11] xfstests: rework src/randholes.c Alex Elder
@ 2010-10-16 5:13 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2010-10-16 5:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Elder; +Cc: xfs
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:49:31AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> Dave's recent "dynamic speculative EOF preallocation" changes
> caused test 008 to no longer produce the kinds of holes it was
> expecting to see, so it got me looking at the program it uses,
> "src/randholes.c".
>
> Since 008 is the only test using this program, it probably
> doesn't deserve the attention I gave it yesterday, but I've
> done the work so I might as well submit the series for
> review and get my changes in.
>
> The first patch in the series actually addresses two things
> that are bugs.
>
> The remaining 10 are just cleanup and refactoring changes.
> Other than two bug fix changes and one change in output
> when running in very-verbose mode, the patched code should
> be pretty much functionally identical to before.
I haven't really looked at the whole series closely, but nothing
stands out as a red flag. Seeing it's test code, it's probably
OK to go as is. The bug fixes look fine.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-10-16 5:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-10-14 14:49 [PATCH 00/11] xfstests: rework src/randholes.c Alex Elder
2010-10-16 5:13 ` Dave Chinner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox