> On Aug. 23, 2018, 3:29 a.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> > src/tests/containerizer/xfs_quota_tests.cpp
> > Lines 343 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68400/diff/1/?file=2074100#file2074100line344>
> >
> >     I'm a bit confused here. We created a 10MB `file` and a partially 
> > created ~1MB `file2`, so wouldn't the total usage (`info->used`) become 
> > ~11MB? Why is `used => info->used` true?

Hmm now I got it. `mkfile` uses `::posix_fallocate`, which is an all-or-nothing 
operation, so `info->used` is still 10MB. But still can you explain why you 
choose `EXPECT_GE`?


- Chun-Hung


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/68400/#review207790
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 16, 2018, 11:52 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/68400/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 16, 2018, 11:52 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Chun-Hung Hsiao, Ilya Pronin, Jie Yu, Joseph Wu, 
> and Jiang Yan Xu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-5158
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5158
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> To manage persistent volumes in the `disk/xfs` isolator we need
> to keep track of the block device that hosts a given filesystem
> path. Expose the `getDeviceForPath` helper API to directly return
> this information.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.hpp 
> e269eb5489ceed8937775a30b3420f7960ab4cd4 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.cpp 
> b691c76e94f686e1a866380dca99ef0fa18e2f49 
>   src/tests/containerizer/xfs_quota_tests.cpp 
> 59ec182c1c3af3978156044f03d9e3d784d51fce 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/68400/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> sudo make check (Fedora 28)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Reply via email to