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 8BAAE7F55 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:03:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5238B576.7080608@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:03:02 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: v2 xfs directory unbalance assert test References: <20130917192538.230164044@sgi.com> <5238AF75.2020905@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <5238AF75.2020905@sandeen.net> 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.sgi.com On 09/17/13 14:37, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/17/13 2:25 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> This tests triggers an assert in the XFS directory unbalance code. >> This test originally written by Brian Foster and suggestions >> from Micheal Semon. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mark Tinguely >> --- >> v1->v2: >> remove clean up. >> remove $seqres.full before test. >> remove scratch mount. >> 11g -> calculate 11g bytes. >> check for failing mkfs and mount. >> add a safer removal of the scratch files. >> >> put into auto group and "long" group so people can opt out: >> this test almost an hour on my test box. > > Is there any way to do a more targeted test than 1hr of fsstress? :( No, I pruned the test down from a 5 hr test to 1 hr test. > > (TBH I didn't follow the bug, so not sure what it takes to repro) > > Otherwise seems fine. > > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen Thanks. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs