On 11/12/24 9:39 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 08:14:28AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 11/11/24 10:13 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 04:42:25PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> Here's the slightly cleaned up version, this is the one I ran testing >>>> with. >>> >>> Looks reasonable to me, but you probably get better reviews on the >>> fstests lists. >> >> I'll send it out once this patchset is a bit closer to integration, >> there's the usual chicken and egg situation with it. For now, it's quite >> handy for my testing, found a few issues with this version. So thanks >> for the suggestion, sure beats writing more of your own test cases :-) >> > > fsx support is probably a good idea as well. It's similar in idea to > fsstress, but bashes the same file with mixed operations and includes > data integrity validation checks as well. It's pretty useful for > uncovering subtle corner case issues or bad interactions.. Indeed, I did that too. Re-running xfstests right now with that too. -- Jens Axboe
