On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:52 AM, robbieko <robbieko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Eryu Guan, > > Yes, it need apply > [PATCH] "Btrfs: incremental send, do not skip generation inconsistency check > for inode 256." > and test again, it will failed. > > because current code there is a problem, but just will not happen. Then it's not a problem... What your're saying is confusing to say the least. I really don't like the idea of adding a patch that is know to introduce a regression and then adding another patch that fixes it. Anyway, your patchset has been reviewed and those patches are not needed anymore as there's a better solution that doesn't imply introducing a regression temporarily, so this test is not really needed. thanks > > Thansk > Robbie Ko > > Eryu Guan 於 2016-11-01 15:20 寫到: > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0800, robbieko wrote: >>> >>> From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Test that an incremental send operation dosen't work because >>> it tries to rename a directory which is already deleted. >>> >>> This test exercises scenarios used to fail in btrfs and are fixed by >>> the following patch for the linux kernel: >>> >>> "Btrfs: incremental send, add generation check for inode is waiting for >>> move." >> >> >> I was testing with v4.9-rc1+ kernel and btrfs-progs v4.6. Seems above >> patch is not merged in 4.9-rc1 kernel, but test passed for me, is that >> expected? >> >> Thanks, >> Eryu > > > > -- > 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 -- Filipe David Manana, "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." -- 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
