From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n58NPfxO257572 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 18:25:42 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 6AD5A8D0908 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 9oGED6YCb2tWqJHf for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:25:59 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: allow more xfs_io tests to be generic Message-ID: <20090608232559.GA28568@infradead.org> References: <4A2D4F51.5050906@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A2D4F51.5050906@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs mailing list On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:50:09PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > What do folks think of this? These tests just do generic > reads & writes with xfs_io; if we add a "-F" they will run > on other filesystems. Looks good to me. Btw, I really wonder if we want to keep the -F flag to xfs_io. Seems rather pointless to restrict perfectly normal I/O to a single filesystem type. And even for XFS specific ioctls we'd get a good enough error code back to handle it. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs