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 508997F50 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:08:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2868F8033 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:08:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id KcLErodk7eZh0F94 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:08:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <530BFB0C.7080602@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:08:12 +0800 From: ZhangZhen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH for xfstests] xfstests: fix to make tests/btrfs/013 really work References: <530AF3E3.9060202@huawei.com> <530B2418.20905@huawei.com> <530B26C9.9060606@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <530B26C9.9060606@cn.fujitsu.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Wang Shilong Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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 >> --- >> 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 ', and it has equal effect as 'btrfs filesystem balance start'. > > Anyway, using latest 'btrfs file balance start ' 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