xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests btrfs/314: test send / receive
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:50:18 -0500
Cc: Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arne Jansen <sensille@xxxxxxx>, sbehrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130607102904.GC13113@dastard>
References: <1370532033-20561-1-git-send-email-list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51B0CCC6.2010500@xxxxxxxxxx> <51B18962.3090504@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130607102904.GC13113@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
On 6/7/13 5:29 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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...

Yup I agree with this, if it's not widely available or replaceable by more
common tools, let's just put a snapshot in xfstests.

-Eric

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 

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