From: Lachlan McIlroy Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 220 - generic quota sanity Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:59:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <669295477.1736351249955985378.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <20090810160949.GA21948@infradead.org> Reply-To: Lachlan McIlroy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Sandeen , ext4 development , xfs-oss , Eric Sandeen To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:39633 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750715AbZHKCA4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:00:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090810160949.GA21948@infradead.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: ----- "Christoph Hellwig" wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:05:17AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > > > This looks good Eric. > > > > > > Is this test just for quota accounting or should it be testing > quota > > > enforcement too? > > > > I guess 108 just did accounting; I was going to keep it parallel, > and do > > a different one for accounting, but it could be added to this as > well. > > Yeah, let's use a different one for enforement testing. Agree, if quota enforcement isn't working correctly then the accounting is the first thing to check so having seperate tests is a good idea.