On 2/4/19 8:51 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 2.04.19 г. 13:07 ч., Anand Jain wrote:
Add more property validation cases which are fixed by the patches [1]
[1]
btrfs: fix property validate fail should not increment generation
btrfs: open code btrfs_set_prop in inherit_prop
btrfs: fix vanished compression property after failed set
btrfs: fix zstd compression parameter
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com>
---
(As this fstest patch depends on the kernel patches,
this patch isn't sent to fstests mailing list yet).
Doesn't matter, it's fine to have a test merged before respective kernel
patches have landed.
Ok.
In fact there is one btrfs test (can't remember
which one) authored by you which is failing, yet the respective kernel
patches have never been sent to the mailing list.
fstests is also a good place to record known issues. Otherwise we can
create a group of known-issues with in fstests. What do you think?
Currently we have these two fstests failing because its fix is not
yet in the kernel.
btrfs/172:
Exposed bug: Punch hole fails at ENOSPC only for the misaligned offset.
Because punch hole has to zero a partial block in case of misaligned
offset. Do you know how to fix? Of late I started believing its a
limitation rather than bug. If we agree we can decompose and reuse
btrfs/172 for something else.
btrfs/154:
Exposed bug: Reappeared missing device fakes its assembly to the
volume.
Fix (as indicated in btrfs/154) V5 is in the mailing list, with
accepted review comments.
