[PATCH for xfstests] xfstests: fix to make tests/btrfs/013 really work

[PATCH for xfstests] xfstests: fix to make tests/btrfs/013 really work

[ZhangZhen]

The test 013 couldn't work because here lacked "start".
This patch fix it.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@huawei.com>
---
 tests/btrfs/013 | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/btrfs/013 b/tests/btrfs/013
index 7620fcc..fb81663 100644
--- a/tests/btrfs/013
+++ b/tests/btrfs/013
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ _check_csum_error()
 }
 $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "falloc 0 1M" -c "pwrite 16k 8k" -c "fsync" \
 	$SCRATCH_MNT/foo > $seqres.full 2>&1
-$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
+$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance start $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
 	_fail "balance failed"
 _scratch_unmount
 _scratch_mount
-- 
1.8.1.4


.




_______________________________________________
kernel.openeuler mailing list
kernel.openeuler@huawei.com
http://rnd-openeuler.huawei.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel.openeuler





_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH for xfstests] xfstests: fix to make tests/btrfs/013 really work

[Wang Shilong]

Hi Zhang,

On 02/24/2014 06:51 PM, ZhangZhen wrote:
> The test 013 couldn't work because here lacked "start".
> This patch fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen<zhenzhang.zhang@huawei.com>
> ---
>   tests/btrfs/013 | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/013 b/tests/btrfs/013
> index 7620fcc..fb81663 100644
> --- a/tests/btrfs/013
> +++ b/tests/btrfs/013
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ _check_csum_error()
>   }
>   $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "falloc 0 1M" -c "pwrite 16k 8k" -c "fsync" \
>   	$SCRATCH_MNT/foo > $seqres.full 2>&1
> -$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
> +$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance start $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
>   	_fail "balance failed"
Due to historical reasons, we have 'btrfs file balance <>'.. Until now, 
it is also
ok to run 'btrfs file balance <mnt>', and it has equal effect as 'btrfs 
filesystem balance start'.

Anyway, using latest 'btrfs file balance start <mnt>' is better than 
previous codes..but patch's
title is not right any more...

BTW,Dave Chinner previously pointed out that we need a cleanup, url can 
be seen:

http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-02/msg00482.html

Thanks,
Wang
>   _scratch_unmount
>   _scratch_mount

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH for xfstests] xfstests: fix to make tests/btrfs/013 really work

[ZhangZhen]

Hi Wang,
Thank you for reviewing my patch.

I ran the test using btrfs progs v0.19(OpenSuse 12.3) previously and got a fail situation.
I verified v3.12 this morning and it work well as you mentioned.

Althouth the new version doesn't have this problem, I think it would be better to fix this.
I'll fix the titile and resend it.

On 2014/2/24 19:02, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hi Zhang,
> 
> On 02/24/2014 06:51 PM, ZhangZhen wrote:
>> The test 013 couldn't work because here lacked "start".
>> This patch fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen<zhenzhang.zhang@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/btrfs/013 | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/013 b/tests/btrfs/013
>> index 7620fcc..fb81663 100644
>> --- a/tests/btrfs/013
>> +++ b/tests/btrfs/013
>> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ _check_csum_error()
>>   }
>>   $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "falloc 0 1M" -c "pwrite 16k 8k" -c "fsync" \
>>       $SCRATCH_MNT/foo > $seqres.full 2>&1
>> -$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
>> +$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance start $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
>>       _fail "balance failed"
> Due to historical reasons, we have 'btrfs file balance <>'.. Until now, it is also
> ok to run 'btrfs file balance <mnt>', and it has equal effect as 'btrfs filesystem balance start'.
> 
> Anyway, using latest 'btrfs file balance start <mnt>' is better than previous codes..but patch's
> title is not right any more...
> 
> BTW,Dave Chinner previously pointed out that we need a cleanup, url can be seen:
> 
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-02/msg00482.html
> 
> Thanks,
> Wang
>>   _scratch_unmount
>>   _scratch_mount
> 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs