[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

To: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests
From: tytso@xxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:04:47 +0000
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, LukÃÅ Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=vJUALiJcWuXedFh44+UHNQu0AII7CHrO5vTF9Ez8CIw=; b=VIV98JRqKXB+DtqMJqmGayeMRkiWorOSQRPMEiUy57IaTOipdXVKGyclWVKv4TOJXtbxSXxnpZd5em4x9XxNSnbTgNo0YAddH57/oI54RcAYaJ63X5NAtVgp+NEf7gZP7SGBhX0ry0wJG5FiT6UGf6KImX8xrng/vEUxeD4/ngo=;
In-reply-to: <53738597.70305@xxxxxx>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1405141508150.9727@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53738316.20601@xxxxxxxxxx> <53738597.70305@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
> >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.

I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might
encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start
using it.

For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs,
and pretty quickly found problems.  (I suspect the same problem exists
in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler
and less scary.)  The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test
unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to
Dave once they are cleaned up a bit.

                                        - Ted

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