On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:36:14AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:57:22AM -0500, bpm@xxxxxxx wrote: > > Wish I did. The test case that discovered this only applies to CXFS. I > > would have liked to post a test case for XFS but decided that this has > > been on my TODO list for too long already. Looks to me like it has to > > be related to the inode size, so you quit probing buffers after the > > first. Maybe some discussion will ring some bells for somebody. > > It would be really good to have one, but the actual patch looks good > enough that I'd consider putting it in. I can assumes you ran > xfstests with various small blocksize options for both the test > and scratch device and it didn't show any regressions? I've been running this patch for quite some time, but having just upgraded to the latest xfstests, this patch is causing fsx failures in tests 075 091 112 127 and 231 on 3.0-rc4 on x86_64 with default mkfs and mount parameters. fsx passes again with this patch removed from my test stack.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
