On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:18:31PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:10:08AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote: > >> +$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG subvolume snapshot -r $SCRATCH_MNT \ > >> + $SCRATCH_MNT/snap_1 >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > >> + > >> +do_snapshots & > >> +snapshots_pid=$! > >> + > >> +$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG send $SCRATCH_MNT/snap_1 > /dev/null 2>&1 || echo "btrfs send failed" > > > > Let's stop this anti-pattern before it takes hold. > > > > If there's output from the send command it should be > > filtered and captured in the golden image. Hence any deviation > > caused by errors is automatically flagged as an error. > > > > That's the whole point of using golden images for capturing errors - > > you don't need to capture return values from binaries and it > > guarantees that users are informed about failures through error > > messages. IOWs: > > > > $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG send $SCRATCH_MNT/snap_1 | _btrfs_send_filter > > > > is what you should be doing here. > > I knew what you mean here, in fact, i did this on purpose. Ok, then you need to explain why you did it on purpose with a comment. It's just as important to explain the reason for doing something in test code as it is in the kernel code. i.e. so when we are looking at the test in 5 years time we know the reason for it being that way. > for this test failure, btrfs-prog did not output failure > information from the beginning. I have nothing good to say about that state of affairs, but... > So to make older progs can also > detect the test failure, i dropped into this way. .. it's going to have to stay like it. Please insert an appropriately sarcastic comment about the usefulness of a silent send command here, because if I write it I'm going to offend lots of people. :/ Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
