On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:40:39AM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: > On 2017/06/01 23:48, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:07:33PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > >>On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:01:13AM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: > >>>The installation of these extended output files are skipped > >>>because they aren't matched by xfstests. So we rename them > >>>to adapt building rules. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang<yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>This patch is 2.4M in size, no wonder it didn't hit the list.. > >> > >>(cc linux-xfs list for these xfs specific tests) > >> > >>>--- > >>> tests/xfs/018 | 8 +- > >>> tests/xfs/018.op.irix | 5628 --------------------------------- > >>> tests/xfs/018.op.linux | 4714 --------------------------- > >>> tests/xfs/018.out.irix | 5628 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/018.out.linux | 4714 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/018.out.trans_buf | 1821 +++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/018.out.trans_inode | 2609 +++++++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/018.trans_buf | 1821 ----------- > >>> tests/xfs/018.trans_inode | 2609 --------------- > >>xfs/018 081 and 082 are all marked as 'deprecated', I'm wondering if we > >>can just remove them. > >I have little good to say about these -- diffing logprint outputs will > >break every time we add new log item types (which we have) so these are > >brittle. > > > >>> tests/xfs/040 | 4 +- > >>> tests/xfs/040.good | 16 - > >>> tests/xfs/040.out.good | 16 + > >>xfs/040 is doing source code diff between userspace vs kernel space, I'm > >>not sure if this is still needed. But xfs/040 requires KWORKAREA points > >>to a directory that contains both userspace and kernel code, I suspect > >>it's rarely run. > >It's /never/ run, because it requires dmapi.h, which doesn't exist on > >Linux, and it appears to assume the pre-libxfs-split directory layout. > >Seeing as xfsprogs ships its own "compare the libxfs code" tool now, > >I think it better to go fix it. Patch for x/040 coming soon. > Hi Darrick > > The libxfs code is being updated regularly, so I think the difference is not > immutable. > Is it necessary to run this case? For the upstream maintainers, yes, because we want to keep the libxfs/ code synchronized between, say, Linux 4.12 and xfsprogs 4.12. Right now we more or less just run it manually, but I think there's value in enabling everyone else to keep us honest by providing everyone a way to look for missing pieces in an automated fashion. :) --D > > Thanks, > Xiao Yang > >>> tests/xfs/081 | 2 +- > >>> tests/xfs/081.out.ugquota.trans_inode | 3091 ++++++++++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/081.ugquota.trans_inode | 3091 ------------------ > >>> tests/xfs/082 | 8 +- > >>> tests/xfs/082.op.irix | 5628 --------------------------------- > >>> tests/xfs/082.op.linux | 4714 --------------------------- > >>> tests/xfs/082.out.irix | 5628 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/082.out.linux | 4714 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/082.out.trans_buf | 1821 +++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/082.out.trans_inode | 2609 +++++++++++++++ > >>> tests/xfs/082.trans_buf | 1821 ----------- > >>> tests/xfs/082.trans_inode | 2609 --------------- > >>> 24 files changed, 32662 insertions(+), 32662 deletions(-) > >Ye $deities! > > > >--D > > > >>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 > > > >. > > > > > > -- > 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 -- 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
