On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:13:27AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > That means a filesystem can't simply return non-basic data unconditionally if > > > possible. I prefer letting it do so if it doesn't incur any extra I/O > > > overheads. > > > > This seems like it will lead to userspace expecting certain fields to > > just be there, and a lot harder to properly verify for tests. Which btw > > we all need for these odd behaviors. If we can't get them any time soon > > (e.g. before -rc6) I think we'll simply have to revert statx instead of > > leaving this untested mess in the tree. > > Here you go. First batch of tests. Please review - and test:-) ltp is a trainwreck. Please send xfstests test like for all other file system functionality. You're really trying to make it as hard as possible for fs developers, don't you? -- 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
