Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs-progs: misc-tests: add test to ensure the restored image can be mounted
On 2021/4/17 上午1:46, David Sterba wrote: On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 08:50:47PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: This new test case is to make sure the restored image file has been properly enlarged so that newer kernel won't complain. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- .../047-image-restore-mount/test.sh | 19 +++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) create mode 100755 tests/misc-tests/047-image-restore-mount/test.sh diff --git a/tests/misc-tests/047-image-restore-mount/test.sh b/tests/misc-tests/047-image-restore-mount/test.sh new file mode 100755 index ..7f12afa2bab6 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/misc-tests/047-image-restore-mount/test.sh @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +#!/bin/bash +# Verify that the restored image of an empty btrfs can still be mounted ^ I've seen that in patches and comments, the use of word 'btrfs' instead of 'filesystem' sounds a bit inappropriate to me, so I change it whenever I see it. It's perhaps matter of taste and style, one can write it also as 'btrfs filesystem' but that may belong to some more polished documentation, so you can go with just 'filesystem'. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll use 'filesystem' from now on. Thanks, Qu
Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs-progs: misc-tests: add test to ensure the restored image can be mounted
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 08:50:47PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > This new test case is to make sure the restored image file has been > properly enlarged so that newer kernel won't complain. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo > --- > .../047-image-restore-mount/test.sh | 19 +++ > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > create mode 100755 tests/misc-tests/047-image-restore-mount/test.sh > > diff --git a/tests/misc-tests/047-image-restore-mount/test.sh > b/tests/misc-tests/047-image-restore-mount/test.sh > new file mode 100755 > index ..7f12afa2bab6 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tests/misc-tests/047-image-restore-mount/test.sh > @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ > +#!/bin/bash > +# Verify that the restored image of an empty btrfs can still be mounted ^ I've seen that in patches and comments, the use of word 'btrfs' instead of 'filesystem' sounds a bit inappropriate to me, so I change it whenever I see it. It's perhaps matter of taste and style, one can write it also as 'btrfs filesystem' but that may belong to some more polished documentation, so you can go with just 'filesystem'.
