[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9466 add JSON output support to channel programs (#619)
jwk404 approved this pull request. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/619#pullrequestreview-159035992 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T0465226805877059-M55e2b7cf64bab84d87f44356 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/subscription
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9634 move reservation zfs tests to use KSH (#661)
jwk404 commented on this pull request. > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#!/usr/bin/ksh -p +#!/bin/ksh -p Igor, do you plan to pursue this, or should we close this PR? I think if you want to pursue it, the change should make the #! line consistent throughout the suite, and effort should be undertaken to ensure that the change isn't inconvenient to downstream consumers. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/661#discussion_r204940295 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T9e4062ea309cb695-M3c36f37473697b15bc20faca Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/subscription
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9634 move reservation zfs tests to use KSH (#661)
jwk404 commented on this pull request. > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#!/usr/bin/ksh -p +#!/bin/ksh -p I'd be fine with that too. The main benefit is that it's the same everyplace in the suite. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/661#discussion_r199573120 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T9e4062ea309cb695-M2f61f25c909b7813153e168e Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9634 move reservation zfs tests to use KSH (#661)
jwk404 commented on this pull request. > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#!/usr/bin/ksh -p +#!/bin/ksh -p I agree with @yuripv, it would be nice to have them all be the same. I do have a preference for `#!/usr/bin/ksh` because it matches what's in the prototypes file. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/661#discussion_r199568820 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T9e4062ea309cb695-M263b8ed40dce81c91ea42785 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9635 we should enable user after creation with zfs tests (#662)
jwk404 approved this pull request. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/662#pullrequestreview-133708540 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T2eaa2365d2749f91-M8cea72bd96ea7d04ae017d0e Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] [openzfs/openzfs] 9184 Add ZFS performance test for fixed blocksize random read/write IO (#659)
Reviewed by: Dan Kimmel Reviewed by: John Kennedy Work by Ahmed Gahnem This change introduces a new performance test which does random reads and writes, but instead of using `bssplit` to determine the block size, it uses a fixed blocksize. Additionally, some new IO sizes are added to other tests and timestamp data is recorded with the performance data. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/659 -- Commit Summary -- * 9184 Add ZFS performance test for fixed blocksize random read/write IO -- File Changes -- M usr/src/pkg/manifests/system-test-zfstest.mf (2) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/runfiles/perf-regression.run (3) A usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/fio/random_readwrite_fixed.fio (35) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_reads.ksh (8) A usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_readwrite_fixed.ksh (82) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_writes.ksh (8) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads.ksh (8) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads_arc_cached.ksh (10) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads_arc_cached_clone.ksh (10) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads_dbuf_cached.ksh (4) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_writes.ksh (8) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/659.patch https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/659.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/659 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T30645d3445359f6e-Ma19784d54e5c947c2d4c3836 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9591 ms_shift can be incorrectly changed in MOS config for indirect vdevs that have been historically expanded (#651)
jwk404 requested changes on this pull request. The Makefile in tests/functional/removal is the old style, which required enumeration of all the tests. Rather than add this test to that file, could you convert it to look like the one in use at Delphix? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/651#pullrequestreview-128458778 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/Taa3327c923b01149-M6bf03c847428c7280a8d59ee Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9082 Add ZFS performance test targeting ZIL latency (#634)
Pool creation could definitely be made more efficient. Things to watch out for would be that different tests with different numbers of threads would want more or fewer files, which would mean they'd want to be different sizes. Also, tests should be able to run in any order, so we can't make assumptions about what has run, and what will run. There are definitely improvements in this area, but I'd rather not lump them in with this fix. destroy_dataset() already has a ton of consumers in ZoL, so I'd rather keep the behavior as it is. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/634#issuecomment-394503446 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T0307887c7165c81e-M7428e4d8f0b6c516c837a7bb Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9466 add JSON output support to channel programs (#619)
jwk404 requested changes on this pull request.
> + end
+
+ args = ...
+
+ argv = args["argv"]
+
+ list_recursive(argv[1], argv[2])
+
+ results = {}
+ results["succeeded"] = succeeded
+ results["failed"] = failed
+ return results
+EOF
+
+# 1. Compare JSON output formatting for a channel program to template
+typeset -a pos_usr/src/cmds=("recordsize" "type")
This syntax is a mystery to me. How does it work? I'm not able to create a
variable with a slash in it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/619#pullrequestreview-121945214
--
openzfs: openzfs-developer
Permalink:
https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T0465226805877059-M4a2fe5b8a72ed1f4222b1d76
Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9195 New coreadm config causes failure in zpool_003_pos (#571)
jwk404 commented on this pull request.
> @@ -15,6 +15,6 @@
.PARALLEL: $(SUBDIRS)
-SUBDIRS:sh = find ./* -maxdepth 0 -type d
+SUBDIRS:sh = ls */Makefile 2>/dev/null | sed 's/\/Makefile//g'
This is part of a Delphix fix that solved 7710 a little differently. It
shouldn't be upstreamed.
> @@ -60,4 +60,4 @@ $(TARGETDIR)/%: %
$(INS.file)
.PARALLEL: $(SUBDIRS)
-SUBDIRS:sh = find ./* -maxdepth 0 -type d
+SUBDIRS:sh = ls */Makefile 2>/dev/null | sed 's/\/Makefile//g'
Same.
> @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ export KEEP="^$(echo $KEEP | sed 's/ /$|^/g')\$"
num_disks=$(echo $DISKS | awk '{print NF}')
[[ $num_disks -lt 3 ]] && fail "Not enough disks to run ZFS Test Suite"
+sudo -k coreadm -e process
The `-i core` from the description was changed during review - the description
is wrong.
I think it's better to have this command in the wrapper script than have a
comment in the README that folks may or may not read. I also feel that it's
appropriate to change system wide settings on a test system.
That said, if this is a blocker for you, let us know; it's easy enough to
restore the setting. Alternatively, we could simply abandon this PR - I don't
expect that coreadm settings need to be changed on other platforms.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/571#discussion_r188060301
--
openzfs: openzfs-developer
Permalink:
https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Ta01e586f3e29f982-Md95b10871832487654481ebb
Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] [openzfs/openzfs] 9082 Add ZFS performance test targeting ZIL latency (#634)
Reviewed by: Dan Kimmel Reviewed by: Matthew Ahrens This adds a new test to measure ZIL performance. - A new DTrace collection script to measure latency, and another to collect stacks of threads scheduled off a cpu for creation of flamegraphs. - Enhances the io.d collection script to produce histograms - Adds the ability to induce IO delays with zinject - Adds a new variable (PERF_NTHREADS_PER_FS) to allow fio threads to be distributed to individual file systems as opposed to all IO going to one, as happens elsewhere. - Refactoring of do_fio_run You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/634 -- Commit Summary -- * 9082 Add ZFS performance test targeting ZIL latency -- File Changes -- M usr/src/pkg/manifests/system-test-zfstest.mf (3) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/include/libtest.shlib (52) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/runfiles/perf-regression.run (2) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/fio/mkfiles.fio (2) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/fio/random_reads.fio (4) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/fio/random_readwrite.fio (2) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/fio/random_writes.fio (2) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/fio/sequential_reads.fio (4) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/fio/sequential_writes.fio (2) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/perf.shlib (271) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_reads.ksh (24) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_readwrite.ksh (24) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_writes.ksh (23) A usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_writes_zil.ksh (73) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads.ksh (26) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads_arc_cached.ksh (24) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads_arc_cached_clone.ksh (38) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads_dbuf_cached.ksh (24) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_writes.ksh (23) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/scripts/io.d (81) A usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/scripts/offcpu-profile.d (41) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/scripts/prefetch_io.d (2) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/scripts/profile.d (2) A usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/scripts/zil.d (92) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/634.patch https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/634.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/634 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T0307887c7165c81e-M92f4519d7a0cc30c5ca7e0db Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9512 zfs remap poolname@snapname dumps core (#633)
jwk404 approved this pull request. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/633#pullrequestreview-116428397 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T3b5605138f9abe5d-M5d2c344e28bfc55c726485a4 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9286 want refreservation=auto (#592)
jwk404 approved this pull request. Apologies for the delay. LGTM. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/592#pullrequestreview-106155659 -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Tcf29132d758782be-Md5c97eef4c13ae75ceee2cd6 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
[developer] [openzfs/openzfs] 9076 ZFS Performance test concurrency should be lowered for better la… (#562)
…tency Reviewed by: Dan Kimmel Reviewed by: John Kennedy Work by Stephen Blinick. Nightly performance runs typically consist of two levels of concurrency; and both are fairly high. Since the IO runs are to a ZFS filesystem, within a zpool, which is based on some variable number of vdev's, the amount of IO driven to each device is variable. Additionally, different device types (HDD vs SSD, etc) can generally handle a different amount of concurrent IO before saturating. Nevertheless, in practice, it appears that most tests are well past the concurrency saturation point and therefore both perform with the same throughput, the maximum of the device. Because the queuedepth to the device(s) is so high however, the latency is much higher than the best possible at that throughput, and increases linearly with the increase in concurrency. This means that changes in code that impact latency during normal operation (before saturation) may not be apparent when a large component of the measured latency is from the IO sitting in a queue to be serviced. Therefore, changing the concurrency settings is recommended You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/562 -- Commit Summary -- * 9076 ZFS Performance test concurrency should be lowered for better latency -- File Changes -- M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/include/commands.cfg (1) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_reads.ksh (13) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_readwrite.ksh (13) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/random_writes.ksh (13) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_reads.ksh (13) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/perf/regression/sequential_writes.ksh (13) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/562.patch https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/562.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/562 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Tc3916b9d2463aaba-M5262b27c2f0aa1a8b640cff9 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9077 zloop misses core files because they're no longer written into cwd (#540)
Yeah, this change was in response to a change in our application that disabled per-process cores, leaving them only in /var/crash. This change lets us get cores from cwd. I wouldn't guess this change would have broad appeal (assuming most folks don't disable per-process cores) but I don't think it hurts any, and it will work for people who have changed the global core file pattern. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/540#issuecomment-364267072 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Tb3ee378817292b38-M41e0ba8d6dbc308d18f9ec36 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9064 ZFS test remove_mirror should wait for device removal to complete (#537)
jwk404 approved this pull request. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/537#pullrequestreview-94780084 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T25887071dfc30a9f-M74b8ff0e0055a0be7c98e0dc Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9004 Some ZFS tests used files removed with 32 bit kernel (#532)
The failure in the tests is 8965, (PR 522) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/532#issuecomment-362017140 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T5a830473b7ac97ae-M34695f9e3b29cad5e55195b8 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9004 Some ZFS tests used files removed with 32 bit kernel (#532)
jwk404 commented on this pull request. > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ log_must zfs create -o compress=lz4 $sendfs log_must zfs create -o compress=lz4 $recvfs typeset dir=$(get_prop mountpoint $sendfs) # Don't use write_compressible: we want compressible but undedupable data here. -log_must cp /kernel/genunix $dir/file +log_must cp /kernel/amd64/genunix $dir/file Makes sense. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/532#discussion_r164593686 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T5a830473b7ac97ae-Ma2f2284d03b8b63936ba08ea Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] [openzfs/openzfs] 9004 Some ZFS tests used files removed with 32 bit kernel (#532)
The tests should avoid using OS files that might disappear if possible. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/532 -- Commit Summary -- * 9004 Some ZFS tests used files removed with 32 bit kernel -- File Changes -- M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/functional/acl/nontrivial/zfs_acl_cp_002_pos.ksh (9) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/functional/acl/nontrivial/zfs_acl_cpio_002_pos.ksh (9) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/functional/acl/nontrivial/zfs_acl_tar_002_pos.ksh (9) M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/functional/rsend/send-cD.ksh (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/532.patch https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/532.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/532 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T5a830473b7ac97ae-Mcb70dd92bcc59cbc719a0fd8 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 8965 zfs_acl_ls_001_pos fails due to no longer supported grep regex (#522)
jwk404 commented on this pull request.
> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ function plus_sign_check_v #
return 1
fi
- ls -vd $obj | nawk '(NR == 1) {print $1}' | grep "+\>" > /dev/null
+ ls -vd $obj | nawk '(NR == 1) {print $1}' | grep "+$" > /dev/null
Sure.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/522#discussion_r162183250
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T966328ea88090567-M14d96dca939bf4407ba83ff5
Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] [openzfs/openzfs] 8965 zfs_acl_ls_001_pos fails due to no longer supported grep regex (#522)
Reviewed by: Pavel Zakharov Reviewed by: Akash Ayare The test used `\>` to detect the end of a string, but this no longer works, so use `$` which works as well since the string ends the line anyway. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/522 -- Commit Summary -- * 8965 zfs_acl_ls_001_pos fails due to no longer supported grep regex -- File Changes -- M usr/src/test/zfs-tests/tests/functional/acl/acl_common.kshlib (6) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/522.patch https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/522.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/522 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T966328ea88090567-M0790f10b83600e75c7bb0e96 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 8204 Makefile changes in zfstest cannot cope with empty directories (#402)
jwk404 approved this pull request. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/402#pullrequestreview-43766525 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T71eb784c31872ce3-Md5f544e99daf137f2e4561cb Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 8311 ZFS_READONLY is a little too strict (#392)
jwk404 commented on this pull request.
> +{
+ nvlist_t*nvl = NULL;
+ int err;
+
+ err = nvlist_alloc(&nvl, NV_UNIQUE_NAME, 0);
+ if (err != 0)
+ return (err);
+
+ (void) nvlist_add_boolean_value(nvl, A_READONLY, 1);
+
+ if (fname == NULL) {
+ err = fsetattr(fildes, XATTR_VIEW_READWRITE, nvl);
+ } else {
+ err = setattrat(fildes, XATTR_VIEW_READWRITE, fname, nvl);
+ }
+ if (err < 0) {
If you think there's a good chance this code will be enhanced in the near
future I'm happy to have it there - otherwise I'd say minimize it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/392#discussion_r120888286
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Tb6ca17b06450145d-M37cae38d5dbfaada02adc634
Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 8311 ZFS_READONLY is a little too strict (#392)
jwk404 approved this pull request. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/392#pullrequestreview-42890480 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Tb6ca17b06450145d-Mb3c3ead991f916a5278c5818 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 8311 ZFS_READONLY is a little too strict (#392)
jwk404 commented on this pull request.
> +{
+ nvlist_t*nvl = NULL;
+ int err;
+
+ err = nvlist_alloc(&nvl, NV_UNIQUE_NAME, 0);
+ if (err != 0)
+ return (err);
+
+ (void) nvlist_add_boolean_value(nvl, A_READONLY, 1);
+
+ if (fname == NULL) {
+ err = fsetattr(fildes, XATTR_VIEW_READWRITE, nvl);
+ } else {
+ err = setattrat(fildes, XATTR_VIEW_READWRITE, fname, nvl);
+ }
+ if (err < 0) {
Do you want to keep this conditional? Looks like fname is always NULL.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/392#pullrequestreview-42757505
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Tb6ca17b06450145d-Mc713f16b7ace83440417d6ae
Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 8311 ZFS_READONLY is a little too strict (#392)
The dos_ro binary should be added to commands.cfg (in the same directory). default.cfg is no longer used that way. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/392#issuecomment-306194892 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Tb6ca17b06450145d-Mb9166e3f07428c507a24574f Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 8304 zfs-tests/bin/zfstest should allow DISKS=(zvols) (#390)
jwk404 approved this pull request. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/390#pullrequestreview-41848185 -- openzfs-developer Archives: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Taa1b6141a4cd3834-Mb4db8ebfd762abe302e38d4f Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
