From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pA39YnJ5255286 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 04:34:49 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4F98821C649 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 02:34:47 -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 vUgnUAMuzMNeQQdR for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 02:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkbzs8 with SMTP id zs8so1117298bkb.26 for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 02:34:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Dmitry Monakhov Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfstests: add fiemap operation to fsstress In-Reply-To: <20111102195534.GB22500@infradead.org> References: <1319849297-3506-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <1319849297-3506-7-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <20111102195534.GB22500@infradead.org> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:34:41 +0400 Message-ID: <87zkgdy2fi.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 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 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs