xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?

To: Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:08:26 -0400
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4DEFC41A.9070701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4DEFC41A.9070701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:48:58AM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> During one of my reviews for the punch hole tests patch set it was
> mentioned that it would be helpful to take the xfstests 145, 161,
> 175, 176, 185 and modify them such that they can run with out
> requiring the dmapi.  These tests contain some more interesting
> punch hole tests, but they dont normally run unless there is support
> for dmapi.
> 
> I did take a peek at them and I was thinking that if we decide to do
> this, we would probably need to do something like introduce a new
> set of source code that is similar to what is seen under the dmapi
> folder, but modified to use a generic interface instead of the dmapi
> libraries.  We could try to merge them into a single code path, but
> I think that may introduce more complexities than would be
> desirable.

Most of it should be doable using xfs_io.  If it's nessecary to write
new source files because of e.g. concurrency tests that we can't easily
do from xfs_io please add new source files to the src/ directory.

Also, please don't rewrite the actual existing dmapi test cases, but
add new ones testing these patterns using the fallocate interface, as
the coverage for the dmapi interface still is useful.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>