Hey Eric, On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:42:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 2/22/12 12:27 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > With Mitsuo Hayasaka's kernel patch "xfs: change available ranges of softlimit > > and hardlimit in quota check", xfs quota behavior is slightly different. > > > > This needs to be reflected in test 050. The new behavior is that we only start > > the timer when we're above soft inode quota, and we don't start the timer when > > we're at or below. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> > > Index: xfstests/050.out > > =================================================================== > > --- xfstests.orig/050.out > > +++ xfstests/050.out > > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ realtime =RDEV extsz=XXX blocks=XXX, rte > > > > *** push past the soft block limit > > [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] 3 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------] > > -[NAME] 140 100 500 00 [7 days] 4 4 10 00 [7 days] 0 0 0 00 [--------] > > +[NAME] 140 100 500 00 [7 days] 4 4 10 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------] > > ... > > > Hm, but now old kernels would fail. Sure, but Mitsuo did fix a genuine off-by-one bug... ;) > Maybe it's better to go 1 past the limit in the test, rather than meet it, and then it'd fail on both old & new kernels? It is of low severity, so this seems like a reasonable middle ground. I'll be happy to respin this patch, unless you'd prefer to. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
