Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:45:36 +0900
From:   Kusanagi Kouichi <slash@ac.auone-net.jp>
To:     dsterba@suse.cz
Cc:     linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Implement lazytime
References: <20200114085325045.JFBE.12086.ppp.dion.ne.jp@dmta0008.auone-net.jp>
 <20200114212107.GM3929@twin.jikos.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200114212107.GM3929@twin.jikos.cz>
Message-Id: <20200115134536820.LBFZ.46476.ppp.dion.ne.jp@dmta0009.auone-net.jp>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-01-14 22:21:07 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 05:53:24PM +0900, Kusanagi Kouichi wrote:
> > I tested with xfstests and lazytime didn't cause any new failures.
> 
> The changelog should describe what the patch does (the 'why' part too,
> but this is obvious from the subject in this case). That fstests pass
> without new failures is nice but there should be a specific test for
> that or instructions in the changelog how to test.

To test lazytime, I set the following variables:
TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o lazytime,space_cache=v2"
MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o lazytime,space_cache=v2"