On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:10:23AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 10/16/13 9:04 AM, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: > > This test is motivated by an issue found by a btrfs user, addressed > > and described by the following GNU/Linux kernel patch: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3046931/ > > Hi Filipe, thanks for the patch. > > Usually we don't want to add new, possibly-failing cases to old tests; > that makes it harder to identify when the code regressed vs. when > the test changed to test new things. > > It would be better to just copy the framework of tests/shared/051 > to a new test in shared/ and test only this new inheritance > problem. > > Also, I'm confused about this hunk: > > > @@ -345,7 +345,12 @@ chacl $acl2 largeaclfile > > getfacl --numeric largeaclfile | _filter_aces > > > > echo "1 above xfs acl max" > > -chacl $acl3 largeaclfile > > +if [ "$FSTYP" != "btrfs" ]; then > > + chacl $acl3 largeaclfile > > +else > > + echo 'chacl: cannot set access acl on "largeaclfile": Invalid argument' > > +fi > > + > > getfacl --numeric largeaclfile | _filter_aces > > > > echo "use 16 aces" > > What's that about? That's working around the "XFS only supports 25 ACLs test". Another reason for making this a separate, generic test. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
