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 o9G5C7fX191300 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:12:08 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C7707F1B226 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail14.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.99]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id EqAiS54DtnurM5da for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:13:13 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] xfstests: rework src/randholes.c Message-ID: <20101016051313.GN4681@dastard> References: <1287067771.2362.202.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1287067771.2362.202.camel@doink> 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: Alex Elder Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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