From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pA3CEEM8007624 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 07:14:14 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 759481CDE7E3 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 05:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ALQiYtx87AJ0grdl for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkbzs8 with SMTP id zs8so1257539bkb.26 for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:14:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Dmitry Monakhov Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfstests: add fiemap operation to fsstress In-Reply-To: <87zkgdy2fi.fsf@dmbot.sw.ru> References: <1319849297-3506-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <1319849297-3506-7-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <20111102195534.GB22500@infradead.org> <87zkgdy2fi.fsf@dmbot.sw.ru> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:14:04 +0400 Message-ID: <87ty6lxv1v.fsf@dmbot.sw.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, hch@lst.de, aelder@sgi.com On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:34:41 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:55:34 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 04:48:15AM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > > > Related bug: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/118863 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov > > > > This causes a very weird XFS failure in test 117 for me. While it > > obviously is an xfs bug that you uncovered (good!) I'm a bit worried > > about simply enabling operations in existing tests. > Ohh. i've got what your are talking about. We can not add new ops > for tests there seed is passed explicitly. And yes i've braked this, but > this is because such frozen tests was written in not determined > way :). Good determined test should has not just seed opt, but also > explicit set of operations. All others (non determined) tests which use > fsstress may benefit from new ops. So I'll redo my patch queue like this: > 1) Add explicit option set for all frozen tests i've stuck immediately on first test ;(. on my kernel 107'th test always failed (commit: 73a57c642cdfa660 "1.1.0 release"), is it expected? Which xfs-tree and commit should i use? > 2) Add new features to fssstress with non zero probability. > > > > Alex, Eric, Dave - should we add new tests with the new operations > > Dmitry added, or is adding new ops to the existing tests fine? > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs