From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D423AC33CB2 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:45:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37B0207FF for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:45:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728981AbgAONpi (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 08:45:38 -0500 Received: from snd00010.auone-net.jp ([111.86.247.10]:51296 "EHLO dmta0009.auone-net.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726071AbgAONpi (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 08:45:38 -0500 Received: from ppp.dion.ne.jp by dmta0009.auone-net.jp with ESMTP id <20200115134536820.LBFZ.46476.ppp.dion.ne.jp@dmta0009.auone-net.jp>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:45:36 +0900 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:45:36 +0900 From: Kusanagi Kouichi To: dsterba@suse.cz Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Implement lazytime References: <20200114085325045.JFBE.12086.ppp.dion.ne.jp@dmta0008.auone-net.jp> <20200114212107.GM3929@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200114212107.GM3929@twin.jikos.cz> Message-Id: <20200115134536820.LBFZ.46476.ppp.dion.ne.jp@dmta0009.auone-net.jp> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 2020-01-14 22:21:07 +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 05:53:24PM +0900, Kusanagi Kouichi wrote: > > I tested with xfstests and lazytime didn't cause any new failures. > > The changelog should describe what the patch does (the 'why' part too, > but this is obvious from the subject in this case). That fstests pass > without new failures is nice but there should be a specific test for > that or instructions in the changelog how to test. To test lazytime, I set the following variables: TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o lazytime,space_cache=v2" MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o lazytime,space_cache=v2"