> > There is a difference between understanding what happened and > > reproducing, but there is no reason to choose one method over > > the other. > > > > As a developer, when I get a bug report I would rather have both > > an easy reproducer and all the postmortem information available. > > Therefore, please echo xfs_io commands, at least for creation of > > random files to full log AND filefrag info, at least for the random > > files to full log. > > > > Actually, xfs_io itself will leave detail information for write operation (pos+write size) > See below, IMO, it is almost no difference compare to echo xfs_io command. > So I just added title for those write scenarios in v2. > > --- > iosize=2048K hole test write scenarios --- (This is what I added in v2) > > wrote 2097152/2097152 bytes at offset 2097152 > 2 MiB, 512 ops; 0.0007 sec (2.732 GiB/sec and 716083.9161 ops/sec) > wrote 2097152/2097152 bytes at offset 6291456 > 2 MiB, 512 ops; 0.0006 sec (2.889 GiB/sec and 757396.4497 ops/sec) > wrote 2097152/2097152 bytes at offset 10485760 > 2 MiB, 512 ops; 0.0007 sec (2.728 GiB/sec and 715083.7989 ops/sec) > wrote 2097152/2097152 bytes at offset 14680064 > 2 MiB, 512 ops; 0.0007 sec (2.778 GiB/sec and 728307.2546 ops/sec) > It's good that you added the titles, but not enough IMO. It is a social engineering issue, not a technical one. It is *nicer* for a test to provide a reproducer, than to provide information that needs to be converted to a reproducer by a developer. And the main reason to be *nicer* in this case, is that it is zero effort for the test writer to provide the report in the form of reproducer, simply by echoing the xfs_io commands via a helper, (e.g. do_io). Please understand that most of xfstests are reproducers by themselves. Some random tests (like fsx/fsstress) leave a recorded log of operations to be used to reproduce a failure. Some random xfstests log the random seed to log, so it can be used to reproduce. In any case, leaving a *simple* one to reproduce a failure is essential. Thanks, Amir.
