[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests btrfs/314: test send / receive
From: Arne Jansen <sensille@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:51:41 +0200
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sbehrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51B1F32A.9080404@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1370532033-20561-1-git-send-email-list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51B0CCC6.2010500@xxxxxxxxxx> <51B18962.3090504@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130607102904.GC13113@dastard> <51B1F32A.9080404@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
On 07.06.2013 16:50, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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.

I'm fine with that, too.


> -Eric
>> Cheers,
>> Dave.

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