Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfstests\:\s+220\s+\-\s+generic\s+quota\s+sanity\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfstests\:\s+220\s+\-\s+generic\s+quota\s+sanity\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] xfstests: 220 - generic quota sanity (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:10:20 -0500; Add some very basic quota sanity tests for generic filesystems. This is based on test 108, but uses the generic quota tools, not xfs_quota, and therefore cannot test project quota. Also, the IOs are; /archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00069.html (17,302 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 220 - generic quota sanity (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lmcilroy@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:13:27 -0400 (EDT); This looks good Eric. Is this test just for quota accounting or should it be testing quota enforcement too? Lachlan; /archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00077.html (23,685 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 220 - generic quota sanity (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:05:17 -0500; I guess 108 just did accounting; I was going to keep it parallel, and do a different one for accounting, but it could be added to this as well. -Eric ...; /archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00080.html (9,499 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 220 - generic quota sanity (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:09:49 -0400; Yeah, let's use a different one for enforement testing.; /archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00088.html (9,120 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 220 - generic quota sanity (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lmcilroy@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:59:45 -0400 (EDT); Agree, if quota enforcement isn't working correctly then the accounting is the first thing to check so having seperate tests is a good idea.; /archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00094.html (9,315 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]