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 q8LKJX2t245847 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:19:34 -0500 Message-ID: <505CCC1D.4000203@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:20:45 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add _require_freeze and minor cleanups References: <505A4D04.2080105@redhat.com> <20120921163827.GA1140@sgi.com> <505C9A35.5000404@redhat.com> <20120921195921.GB1140@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20120921195921.GB1140@sgi.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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Cc: xfs-oss On 9/21/12 2:59 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:47:49AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 9/21/12 11:38 AM, Ben Myers wrote: >>> Hey Eric, >>> ... >>> Pretty good idea to generalize _require_freeze. It looks like xfs_freeze is a >>> script that uses xfs_io which uses xfsctl XFS_IOC_FREEZE. So isn't what you >>> have here xfs specific? It wouldn't work for the other filesystems that >>> implement s_op.freeze_fs: >> >> It got elevated to a generic ioctl: >> >> fs/xfs/xfs_fs.h: >> /* XFS_IOC_FREEZE -- FIFREEZE 119 */ >> /* XFS_IOC_THAW -- FITHAW 120 */ >> >> to: >> >> include/linux/fs.h: >> #define FIFREEZE _IOWR('X', 119, int) /* Freeze */ >> #define FITHAW _IOWR('X', 120, int) /* Thaw */ > > Ah, great. I see it now. It looks like test 119 is also using freeze. Should > that one also _require_freeze? Since it's xfs-specific, I didn't think it was necessary, but it could. -Eric > Reviewed-by: Ben Myers > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs