On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:59:39PM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> This has not been reviewed since your second revision.
> It looks good except you need to remove the changes to
> tests/generic/255 and rebase against the latest tree.
>
> You can then include a:
> Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Thanks for your review. I have rebased the patch and the latest patch
has been sent out. Could you please review it?
Thanks,
- Zheng
>
> Thanks
> --Rich
>
> On 05/15/2013 10:52 PM, wenqing.lz wrote:
> >From: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >After applied this commit (864688d3), xfstests #255 will not test a
> >file system that cannot support fallocate(2), such as a indirect-based
> >file in ext4. So we need to add a new generic test case to test it.
> >
> >The difference between #255 and this test case is only to use pwrite to
> >allocate blocks. Other filesystems should survive in this test case.
> >In the mean time, a new argument '-u' is added into _test_generic_punch
> >not to run unwritten tests.
> >
> And remove these 2 lines as they no longer apply.
> >Meanwhile this commit fixes a minor problem in #255 that testfile should
> >use $seq.$$ as testfile.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >---
> >changelog:
> > * rebase against the latest master of xfstests tree (Based-on Eric's patch).
> >
> > common/punch | 164 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > tests/generic/255 | 2 +-
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
