On 6/28/11 12:26 AM, Allison Henderson wrote: > On 06/27/2011 10:09 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:27:26PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote: >>> New filtered golden output for test 252 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Allison Henderson<achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> :100644 100644 930c924... fcfd121... M 252.out >>> 252.out | 272 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ >>> 1 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/252.out b/252.out >>> index 930c924..fcfd121 100644 >>> --- a/252.out >>> +++ b/252.out >>> @@ -1,239 +1,307 @@ >>> QA output created by 252 >>> 1. into a hole >>> +daa100df6e6711906b61c9ab5aa16032 >>> 2. into allocated space >>> -0: [0..7]: data >>> +0: [0..7]: extent >>> 1: [8..23]: hole >>> -2: [24..39]: data >>> +2: [24..39]: extent >>> +cc58a7417c2d7763adc45b6fcd3fa024 >> >> I don't really like the way this weakens the test for XFS. With this >> change, the test no longer is checking that unwritten extent >> behaviour is correct. >> >> Rather than weakening the test, perhaps it would be better to >> execute 252 for XFS only (with the md5sums added), and then >> duplicate it to a new test for all filesystems to run with the >> weaker result checking that using the new filter function gives us. >> With the amount of common code the two tests share, it should be >> trivial to do this.... >> > > Alrighty, that sounds pretty straight forward, as long as every one > is in agreement. I think that would help retain the tests > effectiveness. Eric, Josef, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I agree, I share Dave's concerns and that sounds like a good way to go. Thanks, -Eric > Allison Henderson > >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
