Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests
From: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:24:11 +0800
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, djwong@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20241030043659.GA32170@lst.de>
References: <20241029172135.329428-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20241030043659.GA32170@lst.de>

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 05:36:59AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Still looks good to me (but I'm a horrible test reviewer, so that
> might not count much :)):

You review always counts much :)

> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>

References:
- [PATCH v2 0/2] fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests
  - From: Brian Foster
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests
  - From: Christoph Hellwig

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 10/12] fs/dax: Properly refcount fs dax pages
Next by Date: [ANNOUNCE] xfs-linux: for-next updated to 81a1e1c32ef4
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests
Next by thread: [PATCH v2] xfs: fix the entry condition of exact EOF block allocation optimization
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)] [Linux Filesystem Development] [Linux Audio Users] [Yosemite Trails] [Linux Kernel] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI]

Powered by Linux