On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Dave Chinner <da...@fromorbit.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:32AM +0000, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: >> This change adds some new tests for btrfs' incremental send feature. >> These are all related with inverting the parent-child relationship >> of directories, and cover the cases: >> >> * when the new parent didn't get renamed (just moved) >> * when a child file of the former parent gets renamed too >> >> These new cases are fixed by the following btrfs linux kernel patches: >> >> * "Btrfs: more send support for parent/child dir relationship inversion" >> * "Btrfs: fix send dealing with file renames and directory moves" >> >> Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdman...@gmail.com> > > Rather than modifying 030 which will cause it to fail on kernels > where it previously passed, can you factor out the common code and > create a new test with the additional coverage? > > i.e. the rule of thumb is that once a test is "done" we don't go > back and modify it in significant ways - we write a new unit test > that covers the new/extended functionality. Redundancy in unit tests > is not a bad thing...
Right. The only reason I did this, instead of a new test file, is that because the former fix which btrfs/030 relates to is not yet in any kernel release. Given this fact, what do you think? thanks > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > da...@fromorbit.com -- Filipe David Manana, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
