From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p5HKKV0R143168 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:20:32 -0500 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id F26DADD420D for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id pe6ucSELMfc4fnvb for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e38.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5HKC1Tj029242 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:12:01 -0600 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id p5HKKKOE177880 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:20:21 -0600 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p5HKKGOm031170 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:20:17 -0600 Message-ID: <4DFBB6FF.8080208@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:20:15 -0700 From: Allison Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v5] XFS TESTS: Add ENOSPC Hole Punch Test References: <4DED6405.7020104@vnet.ibm.com> <20110617120838.GA20714@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20110617120838.GA20714@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-fsdevel , Allison Henderson , Ext4 Developers List , xfs-oss On 06/17/2011 05:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This one fails for me because my test system doesn't have sudo > installed. I can't see any reason why a simple su wouldn't be enough. > > We already have a helper to make su usable on both IRIX and Linux in > test 123, and it might be a good idea to add this to the common routines > and use it. > > I'd also suggest to split this test off 252 into a new test case, as > unlike the other tests it actually requires a scratch devices, and in > general is pretty different from the simple xfs_io exercises in 252. > > I'd also move the newly added helpers directly into the new testcase > as they really aren't common. > Hi Christoph, Thanks for the review, I will make those adjustments then and submit them in a separate patch set since it sounds like 1/3 and 2/3 are moving forward. Thanks again! :) Allison Henderson _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs