From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232497F78 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 01:37:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027C88F8052 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 23:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id EI0YKONloj2Tg16o for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 23:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:37:24 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfstests: btrfs/316: cross-subvolume sparse copy Message-ID: <20130703063724.GK14996@dastard> References: <51D29D17.3050000@oracle.com> <20130702101539.GC14996@dastard> <51D2E33B.1080402@oracle.com> <6B93E4A6-D1C9-4170-8E1C-B94D24F601BB@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6B93E4A6-D1C9-4170-8E1C-B94D24F601BB@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Koen De Wit , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:51:21AM -0400, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On Jul 2, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Koen De Wit > wrote: > > > Dave, > > > > Thanks for the review. I will clean up the commit message and do > > a full mail-to-myself-and-test-patch round trip to avoid errors > > like the wrong test numbers in the golden output. I'm sorry for > > this. > > > > About cutting out file names from the output. I did this in the > > first version of the patch: > > > > md5sum $TESTDIR1/$F | $AWK_PROG 'END {print $1}' > > > > but Eric Sandeen suggested to include them in order to provide > > more context in the output. (See > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00231.html and > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00220.html) That > > sounds like a good idea to me, it makes debugging failures > > easier. Whose opinion should I follow? > > > Heh sorry. IMHO maybe a middle ground; not bare md5sum but show > only the base name? In the end up to you; it seems Dave and I > have different opinions on this. :) I was just going by current xfstests convention. i.e, in common/rc: # Prints the md5 checksum of a given file _md5_checksum() { md5sum $1 | cut -d ' ' -f1 } Which is used by all the hole punch tests and generic/311. Make of that what you will, but I'd prefer to see consistency of implementation across tests... ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs