Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:52:41 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: cem@FreeBSD.org Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r295209 - head/sys/fs/ext2fs Message-ID: <56B23E69.5050006@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAG6CVpU-6x1=Tc-opFWK_g3Yn0R=ghng%2BPP73LA1-kXDbnq9wA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201602031431.u13EVNaL074412@repo.freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpU-6x1=Tc-opFWK_g3Yn0R=ghng%2BPP73LA1-kXDbnq9wA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/03/16 12:38, Conrad Meyer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Author: pfg >> Date: Wed Feb 3 14:31:23 2016 >> New Revision: 295209 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/295209 >> >> Log: >> Revert r294695: >> ext2fs: passthrough any extra timestamps to the dinode struct. >> >> While it passed the classic testing, the change appears to have >> caused some regression and still requires some more precautions. >> >> PR: 206820 > > What's the classic testing — xfstests or something more/less thorough? > My regular testing is fsx and then build a port (cad/spice) on it. Other people have been running other tests like pho's testsuite so we usually catch anything. > I was going to ask what the regression was, but then I noticed the PR number. > Yeah, the error is related to the inode size: I only tested the default (256) which has no problems. Considering the upcoming release I just want to get the get this reverted and I'll worry about a real fix later. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56B23E69.5050006>