On 09/02/2011 11:16 AM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
> Review: Approve
> Do we still have tests that would revert the effect of your patch and explicitly test fdatasync ?
>
> If not, a follow-up addressing that would be nice (features.with_fdatasync or something), I see no point in *always* testing fdatasync, but I'm a bit concerned about *never* testing it.
You can run "bzr selftest --sync". We still have the test that is
asserting os.fdatasync is getting called if it exists.
Is there something else that you need?
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/02/2011 11:16 AM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote: with_fdatasync or something), I see no point in *always* testing fdatasync, but I'm a bit concerned about *never* testing it.
> Review: Approve
> Do we still have tests that would revert the effect of your patch and explicitly test fdatasync ?
>
> If not, a follow-up addressing that would be nice (features.
You can run "bzr selftest --sync". We still have the test that is
asserting os.fdatasync is getting called if it exists.
Is there something else that you need?
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- enigmail. mozdev. org/
gpEMACgkQJdeBCY SNAAMdKQCgpGSst lSjZV3EyIhNJjWn cwPM iJDVsT1IKXdz6y6 AM
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAk5
PecAoJeThVdSA6j
=BGdd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----