On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:22:10AM +0900, Masayoshi MIZUMA wrote: > > test 068 will catch problems like the one your specific test > > catches, but maybe not every time. Test 068 will catch problems your > > test case won't, though - it's a trade-off between having lots of > > tests that are similar but slightly different (difficult to > > maintain, increases runtime, etc), and having one test that > > exercises the functionality in a simple manner likely to detect > > problems. > > Thank you for your explanation about the policy and I understand it. > I tried to reproduce the problem not dropping the sleep, but the problem was > not reproduced... Therefore, I dropped it and the problem was reproduced. > > However, as you mentioned, the problem is a timing proglem, so the > my reproduction might be just by chance. Dropping sleep may increase > the possibility of the reproduction, but not every time, so the change > is not good. That is same for the arguments of fsstress which I changed. > > OK, I update 068 just to run other filesystem, ext3, ext4 and btrfs which > I confirmed xfs_freeze works on. > (xfs_freeze may work on the other filesystems which have freeze_fs/unfreeze_fs > super_operations but I don't confirm...) > > The patch is below. Given that MIZUMAs patch reproduces a real life issue I think adding his original patch in addition to this change would be a good idea. Dave, do you have a strong opinion against that? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
