Re: [v6] xfstests: add a new test case for ext4 indirect-based file

[Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:59:39PM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> This has not been reviewed since your second revision.
> It looks good except you need to remove the changes to
> tests/generic/255 and rebase against the latest tree.
> 
> You can then include a:
> Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>

Thanks for your review.  I have rebased the patch and the latest patch
has been sent out.  Could you please review it?

Thanks,
                                                - Zheng

> 
> Thanks
> --Rich
> 
> On 05/15/2013 10:52 PM, wenqing.lz wrote:
> >From: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@taobao.com>
> >
> >After applied this commit (864688d3), xfstests #255 will not test a
> >file system that cannot support fallocate(2), such as a indirect-based
> >file in ext4.  So we need to add a new generic test case to test it.
> >
> >The difference between #255 and this test case is only to use pwrite to
> >allocate blocks.  Other filesystems should survive in this test case.
> >In the mean time, a new argument '-u' is added into _test_generic_punch
> >not to run unwritten tests.
> >
> And remove these 2 lines as they no longer apply.
> >Meanwhile this commit fixes a minor problem in #255 that testfile should
> >use $seq.$$ as testfile.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@taobao.com>
> >
> >---
> >changelog:
> >  * rebase against the latest master of xfstests tree (Based-on Eric's patch).
> >
> >  common/punch          | 164 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> >  tests/generic/255     |   2 +-
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs