On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:16:55PM +0800, Zhao Hongjiang wrote: > On 2013/4/8 22:05, Rich Johnston wrote: > > Hi Eryu, > > > > Thanks for this cleanup patch. I was going to revert patch "bbaf78c0" which introduced test generic/310 but will wait and see if Zhao will provide more information which could be added to this patch. > > > > > > On 04/07/2013 05:39 AM, Eryu Guan wrote: > >> 1. add one space between # and test description > > > > The rest of the changes look good, sorry I missed them when I reviewed . > > > >> 2. remove creator/owner info > >> 3. fix common/rc and common/filter path so they can be sourced correctly > >> 4. no need to remove $seq.full cause it's not used(or if verbose output > >> is needed, $seqres.full should be used) > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> tests/generic/310 | 12 +++++------- > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/generic/310 b/tests/generic/310 > >> index ef51422..35baa23 100644 > >> --- a/tests/generic/310 > >> +++ b/tests/generic/310 > >> @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ > >> #! /bin/bash > >> # FS QA Test No. 310 > >> # > >> -#Check if there are two threads,one keeps calling read() or lseek(), and > >> -#the other calling readdir(), both on the same directory fd. > >> +# Check if there are two threads,one keeps calling read() or lseek(), and > >> +# the other calling readdir(), both on the same directory fd. > >> # > > > > Hi Zhao, > > > > I did see both threads running at the same time, but the more I > > look at this, the more I am a loss as to what this test is > > doing. > > > > Will you expand this a little please. I should have asked for > > more justification the first time I reviewed this. Please > > provide what bug this is testing or what failure/weakness this > > test exposes. If there is a commit this is related to, please > > reference it. > > > When I ran it on ext2, ext3 and ext4 which has dir_index feature > disabled, I got something like this: > > EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory > #34817: rec_len is \ smaller than minimal - offset=993, inode=0, > rec_len=0, name_len=0 EXT3-fs error \ (device loop1): > ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller > than \ minimal - offset=1009, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 > EXT3-fs error (device loop1): \ ext3_readdir: bad entry in > directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - \ offset=993, > inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 EXT3-fs error (device loop1): \ > ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller > than minimal - \ offset=1009, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 ... > > If we configured errors=remount-ro, the filesystem will become > read-only. So what is the criteria for a test failure? The test body is only reading from the filesystem, so a ro,remount won't cause an obvious failure of the test. Perhaps the test should have more comments in it than "read this URL" to explain what it is doing and what constitutes a failure? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
