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 AED727F3F for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:22:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <52378494.7000406@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:22:12 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfstests: add d_type checking to fsstress References: <52377E50.3040907@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <52377E50.3040907@redhat.com> 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" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-oss On 09/16/13 16:55, Eric Sandeen wrote: > This patch adds a "-D" switch to fsstress so that every time > we call readdir, we stat the dentry& compare it's st_mode > to the d_type. > > If -D is specified only once, it ignores DT_UNKNOWN. If specified > twice, it considers DT_UNKNOWN to be an error. > > It skips paths of "./." and "./.." so that we only look at files > newly created within the filesystem. > > This could be used in an xfstest; it's noisy on a failures so > would break expected output. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > --- > > fsstress doesn't usually do validation, but it's such a handy > framework for creating a ton of random files, this seems like > an ok place to put it. What do folks think? I tried v5 and v4 with and without inode fields in the directory. This looks good to me. Like the 2 levels of the test. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs