xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?
From: Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:17:59 -0700
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20110609110826.GA14899@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4DEFC41A.9070701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110609110826.GA14899@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 06/09/2011 04:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
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.


Alrighty, thx Christoph.  I will keep this work item on my todo list then.

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