From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1425E7F96 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:57:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0E5304043 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 13:57:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Y687yNBEdUIGHG9o for ; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:57:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:57:20 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030 Message-ID: <20140202215720.GT2212@dastard> References: <1391220332-22118-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1391220332-22118-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@gmail.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: Filipe David Borba Manana Cc: jbacik@fb.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:32AM +0000, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: > This change adds some new tests for btrfs' incremental send feature. > These are all related with inverting the parent-child relationship > of directories, and cover the cases: > > * when the new parent didn't get renamed (just moved) > * when a child file of the former parent gets renamed too > > These new cases are fixed by the following btrfs linux kernel patches: > > * "Btrfs: more send support for parent/child dir relationship inversion" > * "Btrfs: fix send dealing with file renames and directory moves" > > Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana Rather than modifying 030 which will cause it to fail on kernels where it previously passed, can you factor out the common code and create a new test with the additional coverage? i.e. the rule of thumb is that once a test is "done" we don't go back and modify it in significant ways - we write a new unit test that covers the new/extended functionality. Redundancy in unit tests is not a bad thing... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs