linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Implement lazytime

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20200116180107663.NIUO.69338.ppp.dion.ne.jp@dmta0002.auone-net.jp>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:01:07 +0900
From:   Kusanagi Kouichi <slash@...auone-net.jp>
To:     dsterba@...e.cz
Cc:     linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Implement lazytime

On 2020-01-15 17:31:28 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> 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?

I ran the attached test.

View attachment "lazytime-test.diff" of type "text/plain" (2311 bytes)