On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:23:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > 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, Probably because I simply added it inline below my sig. The mailer is probably dropping everything below the /^-- $/ line that marks the sig... > > but my only > comment is with regard to minlen. Shouldn't that variable be handled as > an unsigned? Probably, but a ssize_t would be better, and .... > Now that I think of it, that makes me wonder if I should > make that a 64-bit unsigned in xfs_eofblocks..? ... yes, a __u64 would be better. I've got a couple more comments now I've actually used and tested it, so I'll do that today.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
