On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:23:05 -0500
> From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> To: LukÃÅ Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6][RFC] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 01:04:24PM +0100, LukÃÅ Czerner wrote:
> > > Ok, so it's a "fallocate" test group, then?
> > More like "fsx_fsstress" group, which might sound as a terrible name
> > for the group but it explains it quite well. So if you do not have
> > anything against that I'll call the new group "fsx_fsstress"
> How about "block_map" group? I like Dave's suggestion about naming
> the group after what it is trying to test, as opposed to how it does
> that testing. This is also consistent with how the other tests groups
> are named in xfstests.
> However, extents are an implementation strategy, and you might just as
> easily use this test to verify whether or not the punch hole
> functionality for indirect block maps worked correctly.
(it does not :) But I am still having trouble deciphering Al Viro
> What I think using fsx and fstress together have in common is that
> it's a great way of stress testing whatever the file system uses for
> creating and maintaining the translation map between (inode, logical
> block) to physical block, so that's why perhaps "block_map" might be a
> good test group name.
To be honest "block_map" group name does not mean anything to me.
- "fallocate" is not really the right name as it does much more than
- "extents" is not the right name as there is not really anything
- "fsx_fsstress" while this gives information about how it is tested
it's not immediately clear what it is good for.
So I do not know and frankly I do not care very much about the name
of this group so if anyone has a strong opinion about the name feel
free to create such group.
> - Ted