On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:45:34AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > 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? Yeah, I was thinking about this too, will give it a quick test and queue it up if there's no issues found. Sorry I'm a bit late reviewing these patches, I was busy with other work these days. Thanks, Eryu -- 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
