On 11/29/12 10:43 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 11/29/12 10:40 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> >>> But it's a weird inconsistency isn't it, and fixing it up in fsck should >>> be the right thing to do anyway? >> >> Oh, I agree, but basically, as a result I'm going to put this patch on >> hold until we do a bit more testing. I'm just not ready to push this >> out on the maint branch just yet..... >> >> (The general rule is that I want to keep the maint branch in a state >> where someone who wants to take a snapshot for a production >> environment should feel generally comfortable to do this --- modulo >> rollout/integration testing, of course. I'll keep it on an >> es/fsck-int-node-fixup branch to make sure we don't lose it, but it's >> something where I want to add some additional testing before I'm >> comfortable rolling it out to the maint branch, just to make sure it >> doesn't trigger any regression.) > > FWIW, I hacked xfstests to always check the scratch device after any > test uses it, too, and I'm re-running with this change to be sure > it'll run over every fs modification xfstests makes ... > > I'll send that upstream, too. FWIW, ./check -g auto w/ fsck of both devices after each test didn't encounter any fs which triggered this fsck check. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
