Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 01:28:07 AM Filipe David Manana wrote: One of the kbuild test robots reported this a few days ago too. The following patch, sent shortly after the robot's warning, fixes it: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3554671/ I can confirm that fixes the bug for me (with a different config than my usual to trigger the bug) at v3.13-11307-g5cb480f. Much obliged! Tested-by: Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org All the best, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[no subject]
-- 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
Re: [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:32AM +, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: This change adds some new tests for btrfs' incremental send feature. These are all related with inverting the parent-child relationship of directories, and cover the cases: * when the new parent didn't get renamed (just moved) * when a child file of the former parent gets renamed too These new cases are fixed by the following btrfs linux kernel patches: * Btrfs: more send support for parent/child dir relationship inversion * Btrfs: fix send dealing with file renames and directory moves Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com Rather than modifying 030 which will cause it to fail on kernels where it previously passed, can you factor out the common code and create a new test with the additional coverage? i.e. the rule of thumb is that once a test is done we don't go back and modify it in significant ways - we write a new unit test that covers the new/extended functionality. Redundancy in unit tests is not a bad thing... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- 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
Re: [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:32AM +, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: This change adds some new tests for btrfs' incremental send feature. These are all related with inverting the parent-child relationship of directories, and cover the cases: * when the new parent didn't get renamed (just moved) * when a child file of the former parent gets renamed too These new cases are fixed by the following btrfs linux kernel patches: * Btrfs: more send support for parent/child dir relationship inversion * Btrfs: fix send dealing with file renames and directory moves Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com Rather than modifying 030 which will cause it to fail on kernels where it previously passed, can you factor out the common code and create a new test with the additional coverage? i.e. the rule of thumb is that once a test is done we don't go back and modify it in significant ways - we write a new unit test that covers the new/extended functionality. Redundancy in unit tests is not a bad thing... Right. The only reason I did this, instead of a new test file, is that because the former fix which btrfs/030 relates to is not yet in any kernel release. Given this fact, what do you think? thanks Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- Filipe David Manana, Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men. -- 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
Re: [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:08:06PM +, Filipe David Manana wrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:32AM +, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: This change adds some new tests for btrfs' incremental send feature. These are all related with inverting the parent-child relationship of directories, and cover the cases: * when the new parent didn't get renamed (just moved) * when a child file of the former parent gets renamed too These new cases are fixed by the following btrfs linux kernel patches: * Btrfs: more send support for parent/child dir relationship inversion * Btrfs: fix send dealing with file renames and directory moves Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com Rather than modifying 030 which will cause it to fail on kernels where it previously passed, can you factor out the common code and create a new test with the additional coverage? i.e. the rule of thumb is that once a test is done we don't go back and modify it in significant ways - we write a new unit test that covers the new/extended functionality. Redundancy in unit tests is not a bad thing... Right. The only reason I did this, instead of a new test file, is that because the former fix which btrfs/030 relates to is not yet in any kernel release. Given this fact, what do you think? Ok, so if it already fails for everyone, then I think we'll be fine to modify it like this. done is a flexible concept when it comes to unit tests ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- 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
[ANNOUCE] xfstests: updated to ad969ca
Hi folks, The xfstests repository at git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests has just been updated. Patches often get missed, so please check if your outstanding patches were in this update. If they have not been in this update, please resubmit them to x...@oss.sgi.com so they can be picked up in the next update. The new head of the master branch is commit: ad969ca btrfs/030: add more test cases New Commits: Brian Foster (2): [20641b8] xfs: remove spurious line continuation from _require_xfs_crc [710281f] generic/313: initialise TEST_DIR before use Eric Whitney (1): [138ea5c] ext4/306: avoid failures caused by incompatible mount options Filipe David Borba Manana (2): [fd7a8e8] btrfs/025: make test more robust [ad969ca] btrfs/030: add more test cases Josef Bacik (2): [78d86b9] btrfs/029: filter mkfs and cp output [8ebabf7] generic/299: truncate can fail with ENOSPC Wang Shilong (2): [6717b24] Btrfs: add regression test for transaction abortion when remounting [cd86825] Btrfs: add regression test for iterating backrefs Code Diffstat: common/rc | 2 +- tests/btrfs/025 | 34 ++--- tests/btrfs/025.out | 12 tests/btrfs/029 | 6 ++-- tests/btrfs/029.out | 4 +-- tests/btrfs/030 | 86 - tests/btrfs/032 | 57 +++ tests/btrfs/032.out | 3 ++ tests/btrfs/033 | 71 +++ tests/btrfs/033.out | 2 ++ tests/btrfs/group | 2 ++ tests/ext4/306 | 21 + tests/generic/299 | 2 +- tests/generic/313 | 3 +- 14 files changed, 233 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-) create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/032 create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/032.out create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/033 create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/033.out -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- 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
