On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 08:09:33PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> Eryu, >> >> I beefed up the initial test sent earlier today with more checks >> on mounted fs. >> >> The original patch testing only xfs_repair remains patch 1 in this series. >> >> Patch 2 adds fstat tests on mounted fs, which are safe on my test system. >> >> Patch 3 is explosive. It exposes an XFS assert, but I left a "safety pin" >> that needs to be commented out to reproduce the assert. > > My kenrel config doesn't turn DEBUG on, so I don't see a kernel crash :) > > I can push this test out after the fix lands in upstream, then I think > there's no need to leave a switch in the test. > > Otherwise tests look good to me. But I'd like to have Darrick to review > too, as he had written many fuzzer tests and suggested this test :) > Eryu, Darrick has actually reviewed patch 1 v1 and gave only minor comments, which I addressed in v3. So how about merging patch 1 (v3) (sanity of xfs_repair) and leave patches 2-3 for later? Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
