Hi, Christoph, On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > How well is the I/O code tested? It's a full reimplementation of > code full of nasty traps. Did you run xfstests over it? It supports > nfs, so pointing it to a pnfs share should probably just work. We have been testing the code with cthon04 for some time and all cased are passed since the earliest version. And I just had a try with xfstests. It seems it does not support NFSv4 right now. I had to modify common.rc to make "./check -nfs" runable. Otherwise it failed with: common.rc: Error: $TEST_DEV (10.244.82.74:/s4fs1/) is not a MOUNTED nfs filesystem I tried mounting TEST_DIR both w/ and w/o pnfs. The same errors. After fixing common.rc, "./check -nfs" can run but failed and stopped at case 088. Both pnfs block and NFSv4 failed at the same case. Did anyone run xfstests over NFSv4 before? I'm wondering whether it is a regression or if case 088 is valid for NFSv4. 088 - output mismatch (see 088.out.bad) --- 088.out 2011-07-29 07:33:58.180218573 -0400 +++ 088.out.bad 2011-07-29 08:50:55.242319901 -0400 @@ -1,9 +1,2 @@ QA output created by 088 -access(TEST_DIR/t_access, 0) returns 0 -access(TEST_DIR/t_access, R_OK) returns 0 -access(TEST_DIR/t_access, W_OK) returns 0 -access(TEST_DIR/t_access, X_OK) returns -1 -access(TEST_DIR/t_access, R_OK | W_OK) returns 0 -access(TEST_DIR/t_access, R_OK | X_OK) returns -1 -access(TEST_DIR/t_access, W_OK | X_OK) returns -1 -access(TEST_DIR/t_access, R_OK | W_OK | X_OK) returns -1 +fchown: Invalid argument -- Thanks, Tao -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
