All xfstest developers, Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html require
Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from
Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html requires all current patches to
What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new
It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names to their previous numeric file names. But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore? Would it be good enough to st
Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check script: SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]" Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
When named test support is done, then we could do this. There's more than just the rename of the file. group files have to change, there's the possibility that the group list and test list handling w
Ah, I thought support for named tests was there. For right now, though, if we have test ext4/123 and btrfs/123, that's OK and they are considered separate tests, right? Or do we still need to keep th
$ cd tests/generic $ ../../lsqa.pl -b 001 Random file copier to produce chains of identical files so the head and the tail can be diff'd at the end of each iteration. Exercises creat, write and unlin
Test numbers within a subdir are unique. So yes, ext4/123 and btrfs/123 are recognised as different tests. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx