lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:31:28 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Kusanagi Kouichi <slash@...auone-net.jp>
Cc:     dsterba@...e.cz, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Implement lazytime

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:45:36PM +0900, Kusanagi Kouichi wrote:
> 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"

How did you verify that the lazy time updates were applied properly?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ