From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: regression test for ext4 resize with non-extent files Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:55:44 +1000 Message-ID: <20130510045544.GQ23072@dastard> References: <518C1D08.4080309@redhat.com> <518C6414.20800@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: guaneryu@gmail.com, ext4 development , xfs-oss To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:41292 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750824Ab3EJE4j (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 00:56:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <518C6414.20800@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:05:56PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/9/13 10:03 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Eric Sandeen > wrote: > > > > ... > > > index 53af708..4c3e2f4 100644 > > --- a/tests/ext4/group > > +++ b/tests/ext4/group > > @@ -9,3 +9,4 @@ > > 303 aio dangerous ioctl rw stress > > 304 aio dangerous ioctl rw stress > > 305 auto > > +306 dangerous rw resize quick > > > > > > I'm wondering why it's not in auto group :) > > > because I forgot about auto! :) > > But it's also somewhat dangerous; it could oops or hang, so perhaps > auto is not a good idea. If the bug has already been fixed, then auto rather than dangerous should be used. If the hang/panic cannot be fixed, or is going to take some time to be fixed, that's when dangerous should be used. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2577E29DF8 for ; Thu, 9 May 2013 23:56:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044268F8033 for ; Thu, 9 May 2013 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CSfmvaT4dI1L6Dix for ; Thu, 09 May 2013 21:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:55:44 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: regression test for ext4 resize with non-extent files Message-ID: <20130510045544.GQ23072@dastard> References: <518C1D08.4080309@redhat.com> <518C6414.20800@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <518C6414.20800@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: ext4 development , guaneryu@gmail.com, xfs-oss On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:05:56PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/9/13 10:03 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Eric Sandeen > wrote: > > > > ... > > > index 53af708..4c3e2f4 100644 > > --- a/tests/ext4/group > > +++ b/tests/ext4/group > > @@ -9,3 +9,4 @@ > > 303 aio dangerous ioctl rw stress > > 304 aio dangerous ioctl rw stress > > 305 auto > > +306 dangerous rw resize quick > > > > > > I'm wondering why it's not in auto group :) > > > because I forgot about auto! :) > > But it's also somewhat dangerous; it could oops or hang, so perhaps > auto is not a good idea. If the bug has already been fixed, then auto rather than dangerous should be used. If the hang/panic cannot be fixed, or is going to take some time to be fixed, that's when dangerous should be used. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs