On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:59:07PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > I'm not sure how the numbering is supposed to work now that we've split > everything out so I'm just going with the next number in the directory. Number them however you want - numbers are unique within a subdirectory. > This is > a regression test for btrfs send, we had a problem where we'd try to send a file > that had been deleted in the source snapshot. This is just to make sure we > don't have the same problem in the future. Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > V1->V2: > -added a -x optoin to multi_open_unlink to make it not check for existing > files > -made all the normal output go to $seqres.full .... > @@ -73,6 +74,9 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) > case 'v': /* value size on eas */ > value_size = atoi(optarg); > break; > + case 'x': /* don't use O_EXCL, for use with exsint files */ Typo - "exsint" ..... > +trap "_cleanup ; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15 > + > +# get standard environment, filters and checks > +. ./common/rc > +. ./common/filter > + > +# real QA test starts here > +_supported_fs btrfs > +_supported_os Linux > +_require_scratch > + > +_scratch_mkfs > /dev/null 2>&1 > +_scratch_mount You probably want to remove $seqres.full here, so that on failure only the output of the current run is in the file. Other than those two minor things, it looks good. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
