Hello, Omar:
To update some cases to support RAID5/6 is necessary.
Like btrfs/011 btrfs/071 , and the man page of BTRFS-REPLACE,
they all should be modified.
But equipment damage and missing device is small probability event when
we use disks in our daily life. So it shouldn't be so important that we let
_btrfs_get_profile_confilgs know it.
Besides, every case tests a different direction of replace is good. e.g.
011 071 020 etc.
So I think to test it in a new case is better. What is your opinion?
cheers,
wangyf
On 06/27/2015 06:24 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 01:21:03PM +0800, Wang Yanfeng wrote:
[snip]
+_test "raid1"
+_test "raid10"
+_test "raid5"
+_test "raid6"
Hi, Wang Yanfeng,
Thanks a lot for posting this. This looks similar to the stuff in, e.g.,
btrfs/071:
_btrfs_get_profile_configs replace
...
echo "Silence is golden"
for t in "${_btrfs_profile_configs[@]}"; do
run_test "$t"
done
It'd be nice to do it the same way in this test. _btrfs_profile_configs
would need to be updated to support RAID 5/6 and be aware of replace
missing. I'll attach a patch, feel free to use it. Additionally, we
could also update btrfs/011 to test RAID 5/6.
Thanks,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
