On 10/22/2012 03:34 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:16:57AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> On 10/17/2012 06:40 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Can we be assured that we'll get an xfstest for it eventually? >> >> Absolutely. Getting a command into xfs_io to support such a test is now >> the top of my todo list with regard to XFS. :) > > Here's a patch to the new xfs_spaceman program I'm writing that adds > control for these ioctls. > Very cool, thanks. Catchy name for the tool as well, btw ;). For some reason my mailer is stripping out the patch, but my only comment is with regard to minlen. Shouldn't that variable be handled as an unsigned? Now that I think of it, that makes me wonder if I should make that a 64-bit unsigned in xfs_eofblocks..? Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
