From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4B77F37 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:43:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5239E638.4060908@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:43:20 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: v2 xfs directory unbalance assert test References: <20130917192538.230164044@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: 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: "Michael L. Semon" Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On 09/18/13 11:36, Michael L. Semon wrote: > Looks good. I tried it on an 11-GB partition with an unpatched git kernel > 3.12.0 + xfs-oss/master, coupled with the latest git xfsprogs. It took a > reasonable amount of time, relatively speaking. It put forth the error I was > expecting, and a new 32-bit core is available upon your request but not > uploaded yet. > > As for the assert itself, according to kgdb, these are the first, last, and > BBTOB(bp->b_length) numbers for this run: > > 1544 4591 4096 > > Good work! > > Michael Thanks for the feedback. last > BBTOB(bp->b_length) was also true for the longer version of the test. The only difference is that it happens earlier in the remove. I take a closer look at the code. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs