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 0A0967CA1 for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 16:38:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D3E8F8052 for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id as4kHpDGsNl2BiX4 for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:38:18 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxcmd: fix counting of xfs entries in fs_table_insert Message-ID: <20160925213818.GR340@dastard> References: <1474798162-25960-1-git-send-email-eguan@redhat.com> <20160925143155.GB29268@infradead.org> <20160925145816.GD27776@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> <20160925161256.GA25791@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160925161256.GA25791@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, billodo@redhat.com, Eryu Guan , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 09:12:56AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:58:16PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > It's already part of xfs/244, I noticed this bug because xfs/244 kept > > running. I just put the minimum steps in commit log. So I think we're > > good :) > > But only as part of xfs/244 which doesn't work for v5 file systems. > To have good coverage we should not rely on testing an old format. > That beeing said I can't see a good reason for why xfs/244 should not > be run for v5 file systems, so I'll look into that instead. It's because it's testing the projid32bit mkfs option works correctly. i.e. that project IDs > 16 bits fail on a a filesystem that only supports 16 bit project IDs. v5 filesystems only support 32 bit project IDs, so setting a > 16bit ID will succeed, not fail like the test is expecting. A new test would be simplest. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs