Hello Filipe, On Thursday 26 Mar 2015 10:59:28 Filipe David Manana wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Chandan Rajendra > > <chan...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > The test case passes file offsets which are aligned to 4k block size. > > This > > causes btrfs_ioctl_clone() to return with -EINVAL for larger block sizes. > > Fix this by computing file offsets at run time based on the block size of > > the underlying filesystem. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chan...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > --- > > There are some more test cases which assume 4k as the underlying > > filesystem's block size. I am planning to fix them using the > > final solution agreed upon by the community. > > Seems fine to me. Only one minor comment below. > You should have mentioned that this patch supersedes your previous > patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5908801/
Sorry about that. I will mention this when I post the patchset again and also put differing messages for the two 'Mismatching hash value' cases. -- chandan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
