From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v2] XFS TESTS: Fix 252 Failure: Update 252 Golden Output Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:29:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4E09D735.5060000@redhat.com> References: <1309235247-32650-1-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1309235247-32650-3-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110628050900.GL32466@dastard> <4E09660B.7050706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ext4 Developers List , Josef Bacik To: Allison Henderson Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E09660B.7050706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On 6/28/11 12:26 AM, Allison Henderson wrote: > On 06/27/2011 10:09 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:27:26PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote: >>> New filtered golden output for test 252 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Allison Henderson >>> --- >>> :100644 100644 930c924... fcfd121... M 252.out >>> 252.out | 272 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ >>> 1 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/252.out b/252.out >>> index 930c924..fcfd121 100644 >>> --- a/252.out >>> +++ b/252.out >>> @@ -1,239 +1,307 @@ >>> QA output created by 252 >>> 1. into a hole >>> +daa100df6e6711906b61c9ab5aa16032 >>> 2. into allocated space >>> -0: [0..7]: data >>> +0: [0..7]: extent >>> 1: [8..23]: hole >>> -2: [24..39]: data >>> +2: [24..39]: extent >>> +cc58a7417c2d7763adc45b6fcd3fa024 >> >> I don't really like the way this weakens the test for XFS. With this >> change, the test no longer is checking that unwritten extent >> behaviour is correct. >> >> Rather than weakening the test, perhaps it would be better to >> execute 252 for XFS only (with the md5sums added), and then >> duplicate it to a new test for all filesystems to run with the >> weaker result checking that using the new filter function gives us. >> With the amount of common code the two tests share, it should be >> trivial to do this.... >> > > Alrighty, that sounds pretty straight forward, as long as every one > is in agreement. I think that would help retain the tests > effectiveness. Eric, Josef, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I agree, I share Dave's concerns and that sounds like a good way to go. Thanks, -Eric > Allison Henderson > >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. >