[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

To: tytso@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests
From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:50:49 -0500
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, LukÃÅ Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140514160447.GA3974@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1405141508150.9727@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53738316.20601@xxxxxxxxxx> <53738597.70305@xxxxxx> <20140514160447.GA3974@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On 2014-05-14 16:04:47, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.

Oh, that sounds interesting. I haven't seen these patches, but I expect
they would be pretty easy for me to extend for testing eCryptfs. That
has been on my todo list for a long time but I haven't spent much time
working on eCryptfs lately.

BTW, you can use this email as a supporting data point for your first
paragraph. :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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