From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q9MDJls8091170 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:19:47 -0500 Message-ID: <508548BF.9090103@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:23:11 -0400 From: Brian Foster MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] xfs: add XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl References: <1349446636-8611-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <1349446636-8611-7-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <20121011141335.GY13214@sgi.com> <507749A2.4020206@redhat.com> <20121015224626.GU24986@sgi.com> <20121015234902.GH2739@dastard> <20121016013901.GI2739@dastard> <20121017224004.GG1377@sgi.com> <507FF339.8020208@redhat.com> <20121022073422.GC2739@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20121022073422.GC2739@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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Ben Myers , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 10/22/2012 03:34 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:16:57AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> On 10/17/2012 06:40 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >>>>> FWIW, given the background cleanup code can be trivially verified to >>>>> work (open, apend, close, repeat, wait 5 minutes) and is the >>>>> functionality that is needed in mainline, having something to test >>>>> the ioctls should not stop the patchset from being merged. >>> >>> Can we be assured that we'll get an xfstest for it eventually? >> >> Absolutely. Getting a command into xfs_io to support such a test is now >> the top of my todo list with regard to XFS. :) > > Here's a patch to the new xfs_spaceman program I'm writing that adds > control for these ioctls. > Very cool, thanks. Catchy name for the tool as well, btw ;). For some reason my mailer is stripping out the patch, but my only comment is with regard to minlen. Shouldn't that variable be handled as an unsigned? Now that I think of it, that makes me wonder if I should make that a 64-bit unsigned in xfs_eofblocks..? Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs