From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p7TDbM68073952 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:37:22 -0500 Received: from test.thunk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 101FB543A5F for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from test.thunk.org (li9-11.members.linode.com [67.18.176.11]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lJyDndIlh2mp7JQB for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:37:18 -0400 From: "Ted Ts'o" Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't print "do not support" warnings unless verbose is specified Message-ID: <20110829133718.GD12187@thunk.org> References: <1314467002-20297-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20110829053621.GH32358@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110829053621.GH32358@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Ext4 Developers List , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 03:36:21PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 01:43:22PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > Commit 630421f6d449 attempts to avoid printing the "fallocate not > > supported" warning if the -q (quiet) option is specified on the > > command-line. Unfortunately tests 75 and 112 don't set the -q flag. > > This causes test failures for file systems that don't support > > fallocate or the punch hole functionality. > > > > I considered changing tests 75 and 112 to pass -q to fsx, but that > > would suppress other warning messages that could be legitimate test > > failures, so I decided to add a new -v (vebose) flag. > > Oh, so now we can have verbose quietness? Or is it quiet verbosity? > That quickly leads to insanity.... :/ > > The quiet flag only suppresses output that is otherwise logged and > output when a failure occurs. Hence setting the quiet won't cause > any loss of functionality or error detection for these tests so you > should just add the quiet flag to the tests. OK, I'll resubmit a patch which changes the tests (i.e., 75 and 112) to pass the -q flag to fsx. I had thought _not_ passing -q was deliberate, but reviewing the output, it does seem that none of the !quiet messages are all that important. - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs