Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs: Add regression test for reserved space leak.

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On 2015/08/05 10:57, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:39:35AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Tsutomu Itoh wrote on 2015/08/05 10:26 +0900:
On 2015/08/05 10:08, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+# As the reserved space freeing happens at commit_transaction time,
+# without a transaction commit, no reserved space needs freeing and
+# won't trigger the bug.
+sync

Isn't '$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem sync' better instead of 'sync'?

Thanks,
Tsutomu
Hi, Tsutomu-san,

Yes, I did use such method before, but Dave said it's better to use
unified interface to sync a filesystem other than the specialized
one.

So I still use sync as Dave said.

Mainly because "sync" is what users will use to make sure their data
is safe. filesystem specific tools have a habit of doing "special
stuff" to sync a filesystem, so it may not reflect the way users
expect the system to behaviour when they run sync.

The other option is this:

_syncfs()
{
	mntpt=$1

	$XFS_IO_PROG -c syncfs $mntpt
}

_sync_test()
{
	_syncfs $TEST_DIR
}

_sync_scratch()
{
	_syncfs $SCRATCH_MNT
}

which only runs sync on the filesystem that needs syncing (via the
syncfs() syscall)

I think that syncfs is better instead of sync because the syncing of
the specified filesystem is necessary.

Thanks,
Tsutomu


Cheers,

Dave.



--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux