| Message ID | 530B2418.20905@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
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@huawei.com> > --- > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Wang, Thank you for reviewing my patch. I ran the test using btrfs progs v0.19(OpenSuse 12.3) previously and got a fail situation. I verified v3.12 this morning and it work well as you mentioned. Althouth the new version doesn't have this problem, I think it would be better to fix this. I'll fix the titile and resend it. On 2014/2/24 19:02, Wang Shilong wrote: > 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@huawei.com> >> --- >> 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 > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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" _scratch_unmount _scratch_mount
The test 013 couldn't work because here lacked "start". This patch fix it. Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@huawei.com> --- tests/btrfs/013 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)