Re: [PATCH] xfstests 235: do smaller test IO |
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests 235: do smaller test IO
- From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:21:12 -0500
- Cc: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20120326220926.GO5091@dastard>
- References: <4F70C3D9.80708@redhat.com> <20120326220926.GO5091@dastard>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0
On 3/26/12 5:09 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:30:33PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Test 235 fails on ext2/ext3 with 1024 fs block size because a
>> 16k write uses an extra metadata block. If we do a smaller write
>> this won't happen.
> .....
>>
>> -$XFS_IO_PROG -F -c 'pwrite 0 16k' -c 'fsync' \
>> +$XFS_IO_PROG -F -c 'pwrite 0 8k' -c 'fsync' \
>
> So now it fails only on 512 byte block size filesystems?
ext[23] don't do 512 byte block filesystems, so no. ;)
> Perhaps rather than an exact match, a "within_tolerance" match could
> be done on the relevant fields?
>
> i.e something like:
>
> blksused=`{requota cmd} | awk '/fsgqa/ { print $3 }'`
> _within_tolerance "blocks used" $blksused 16 1
>
> If you wanted to get really fancy, the tolerance could be set
> depending on filesystem type and block size, but I don't think that
> is really necessary....
But I don't want to get really fancy, I spend enough time in xfstests
already. ;)
TBH even the _within_tolerance will take more munging around to get right,
it doesn't seem worth it, but if it's required for a review, ok...
-Eric
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
[Linux USB Devel]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Free Online Dating]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]