On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:15:42PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:46:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild
> > the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work.
>
> Seems like it's two more
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:46:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild
> the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work.
Seems like it's two more xfs_repair, three in total :)
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
> We do have specific tests that examine the outputs of rebuilding the
> indices (all the fuzzer group tests do this too); this patch enables a
> test runner to expand that coverage to all tests. Running a
> rebuilding xfs_repair for all the tests shook out some bugs in the
> xfs_repair rmap
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:27:19PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:46:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild
> > the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work.
>
> This looks fine to me
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:46:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild
> the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work.
This looks fine to me in general, but shouldn't we have specific
tests that test the rebuilding in a
Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild
the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
README|4
common/rc | 30 ++
2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)