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 q6M6SZpw109829 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:28:36 -0500 Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:28:30 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] xfs: probe data buffer from page cache for unwritten extents Message-ID: <20120722062830.GA23062@infradead.org> References: <50091696.4000903@oracle.com> <5009A786.3080500@sgi.com> <500A4B24.40908@oracle.com> <20120722045703.GA17235@infradead.org> <500B8FAA.8030804@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <500B8FAA.8030804@oracle.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: Jie Liu Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Mark Tinguely , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:29:14PM +0800, Jie Liu wrote: > Should we keep 285 unchanged and introduce a new test 28? which is > dedicated to ensuring the refinements works as expected? > I have added some new test cases to Mark's test program yesterday, > looks it will grow even bigger if I can think out some other > corner cases(will send them to Mark). I think a separate case is better, as 285 just tests a basic correct implementation, while this one tests the refinements. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs