On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:46:26PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Brian, > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 06:35:14PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > On 10/11/2012 10:13 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > Hey Brian, > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:17:12AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > >> The XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl allows users to invoke an EOFBLOCKS > > >> scan. The xfs_eofblocks structure is defined to support the command > > >> parameters (scan mode). > > > > > > It would help to have an xfstest to exercise this ioctl to pull in with this > > > series. Do you have any code that could be wrangled into a test case? > > > > > > > Yes, makes sense. I have some very basic test code I could put somewhere > > to invoke the ioctl(). One of the questions I've been meaning to ask is > > whether it would be relevant for that code to live in a common tool, > > such as adding a new command to xfs_io. Then perhaps create an xfstests > > test using that. Thoughts? > > IMO you are right on the mark. xfs_io is a great place for this. > > > FYI, I have a few other things on my plate at the moment so > > unfortunately it will be a bit before I can get back to XFS work... But > > I'm fine with the set pending until I can come up with some test > > coverage if that is preferable, of course. > > I do think it is preferable to have a test case go in with the code where > possible. Since you don't mind waiting a bit, that seems to be the way to go. > The other option could be to look for a volunteer to work on the test. ;) FWIW, given the background cleanup code can be trivially verified to work (open, apend, close, repeat, wait 5 minutes) and is the functionality that is needed in mainline, having something to test the ioctls should not stop the patchset from being merged. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
