Hi Zhang,
On 02/24/2014 06:51 PM, ZhangZhen wrote:
The test 013 couldn't work because here lacked "start".
This patch fix it.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen<zhenzhang.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/btrfs/013 | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/013 b/tests/btrfs/013
index 7620fcc..fb81663 100644
--- a/tests/btrfs/013
+++ b/tests/btrfs/013
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ _check_csum_error()
}
$XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "falloc 0 1M" -c "pwrite 16k 8k" -c "fsync" \
$SCRATCH_MNT/foo > $seqres.full 2>&1
-$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
+$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem balance start $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || \
_fail "balance failed"
Due to historical reasons, we have 'btrfs file balance <>'.. Until now,
it is also
ok to run 'btrfs file balance <mnt>', and it has equal effect as 'btrfs
filesystem balance start'.
Anyway, using latest 'btrfs file balance start <mnt>' is better than
previous codes..but patch's
title is not right any more...
BTW,Dave Chinner previously pointed out that we need a cleanup, url can
be seen:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-02/msg00482.html
Thanks,
Wang
_scratch_unmount
_scratch_mount
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
