On 7/9/20 9:15 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 7/9/20 9:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
>> This test is run constantly by us, specifically because
it's the error cases that get you. But not for crash consistency reasons, because
we're solid there. I run them to make sure I don't have stupid things like
reference leaks or whatever in the error path. Thanks,
>
> or "corrupted!" printk()s that terrify the hapless user? ;)
I'd love to know what hapless user is running xfstests. Thanks,
*sigh*
the point is, telling the user "your filesystem is corrupted" if it's not
actually corrupted is bad news. Discovering that communication problem via xfstests does
not make the concern less valid. I was trying to gently tease you that the test not only
discovers leaks, but also discovers terrifyingly inaccurate messages in response to IO
errors, but I guess that didn't come through.
Thanks.
-Eric