xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Arne Jansen <sensille@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests btrfs/314: test send / receive
From: Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:53:52 +0200
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sbehrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51B1F37D.1060005@xxxxxxx>
References: <1370532033-20561-1-git-send-email-list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51B0CCC6.2010500@xxxxxxxxxx> <51B18962.3090504@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130607102904.GC13113@dastard> <51B1F32A.9080404@xxxxxxxxxx> <51B1F37D.1060005@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
On Fri, June 07, 2013 at 16:51 (+0200), Arne Jansen wrote:
> 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.

To prevent more agreement mails: I'll send a v2 including fssum.c, but probably
not today.

-Jan

> -Arne
> 
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dave.
>>>
>>
> 

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