From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n590nR97260616 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:49:27 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4AACC1240A69 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id PQKh4SOkl0tc41ao for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A2DB192.9070608@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:49:22 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: allow more xfs_io tests to be generic References: <4A2D4F51.5050906@redhat.com> <20090608232559.GA28568@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20090608232559.GA28568@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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs mailing list Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:50:09PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> What do folks think of this? These tests just do generic >> reads & writes with xfs_io; if we add a "-F" they will run >> on other filesystems. > > Looks good to me. Btw, I really wonder if we want to keep the -F > flag to xfs_io. Seems rather pointless to restrict > perfectly normal I/O to a single filesystem type. And even for XFS > specific ioctls we'd get a good enough error code back to handle it. I was thinking the same thing. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs