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 2F5BB7CAF for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:48:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7E08F8049 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id bq461arUwtseM2Ht (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:48:37 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/259: handle minimum block size more precisely Message-ID: <20160407234837.GA1439@infradead.org> References: <1460027155-4222-1-git-send-email-eguan@redhat.com> <20160407213231.GD761@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160407213231.GD761@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Eryu Guan , fstests@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 07:32:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/259 b/tests/xfs/259 > > index 16c1935..3150ff3 100755 > > --- a/tests/xfs/259 > > +++ b/tests/xfs/259 > > @@ -51,9 +51,7 @@ testfile=$TEST_DIR/259.image > > # Test various sizes slightly less than 4 TB. Need to handle different > > # minimum block sizes for CRC enabled filesystems, but use a small log so we > > # don't write lots of zeros unnecessarily. > > -xfs_info $TEST_DIR | _filter_mkfs 2> $tmp.mkfs > /dev/null > > -. $tmp.mkfs > > This tests the configuration of the test device, which is not > controlled by the test harness, so can be different to the > configuration being used for the scratch device. > > > -if [ $_fs_has_crcs -eq 1 ]; then > > +if [ $XFS_MKFS_CRC_DEFAULT -eq 1 ]; then > > IOWs, this is not an not equivalent test. And I think that's the whole point of this change :) Previously it tested what the TEST_DIR did, which was wrong for this test. Now it tests what mkfs does by default (including for the scratch dev), which is what we really want here. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs