On 06/29/2015 02:13 AM, wangyf wrote: > 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 Hi, Yanfeng, Sorry, I think I might have been unclear. I definitely agree that the missing case should be tested in a separate test case. However, I do think that _btrfs_get_profile_configs should be updated so we can keep things in one place and make sure that all profiles are thoroughly tested. With _btrfs_get_profile_configs aware of RAID 5/6 and missing device replacement, the new test case can just make use of that instead of hardcoding the profiles to test. Does that sound alright? Thanks! -- Omar -- 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
