xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests btrfs/314: test send / receive

To: Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests btrfs/314: test send / receive
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 20:29:04 +1000
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Arne Jansen <sensille@xxxxxxx>, sbehrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51B18962.3090504@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1370532033-20561-1-git-send-email-list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51B0CCC6.2010500@xxxxxxxxxx> <51B18962.3090504@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:18:58AM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> (cc Arne for far-progs discussion)
> 
> On Thu, June 06, 2013 at 19:54 (+0200), Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 6/6/13 10:20 AM, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> >> Basic send / receive functionality test for btrfs. Requires current
> >> version of fsstress built (-x support). Relies on fssum tool, which is
> >> not part of the test suite but can skip the test if it is missing.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > w/o commenting on the test itself, I'm a little uneasy about requiring
> > some external, not-widely-installed tool for this to run.  The fear is
> > that it won't be run as often as it could/should be.
> 
> The main purpose is to have it run by developers changing something around 
> btrfs
> send / receive and probably the backref walker (while there exists a separate
> test not requiring fssum for backrefs). I think we can get them to install 
> fssum.

There's no point in having tests that require you to go find
something else before the tests can be run. That's been tried
before, and it doesn't work - the test just won't get run by
the majority of people who run xfstests.

> > Could the same test be done w/o fssum, or should we maybe put a copy
> > of fssum into xfstests/src/fssum.c ?
> 
> I don't know any adequate replacement for fssum in this case. The purpose is 
> to
> build a checksum for a whole file system tree, including data and partly 
> metadata.
> 
> I don't feel like copying fssum from far-progs into xfstests, though it 
> probably
> won't hurt much. However, I cannot promise we won't make changes to it for
> far-progs, probably creating two incompatible versions of fssum in the wild. 
> Arne?
> 
> > Or does fssum exist in any standard distro package?
> 
> It doesn't. Perhaps Josef can hurry and make a Fedora package for it, if that
> prevents a separate copy to xfstests :-)

No, it doesn't. Packages would be needed for debian, suse, SLES,
RHEL, etc for that to be a useful method of distribution. Just dump
a snapshot of the utility in the xfstests src dir so we don't have
to care about distribution issues...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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