On 12/15/14 3:06 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:19:43PM +0100, Dushan Tcholich wrote:
>>
>> This is initial xfstests implementation for Reiser4 filesystem.
>>
>
> Policy question to the wider audience: should we support out of tree
> filesystems in fstests? I can't verify the patches nor maintain
> support for such filesystems, nor is there a wide developer or
> distro demand for testing such filesystems. If there's only one or
> two developers that need support for reiser4, then it might be best
> for to maintain the xfstests patches out of tree, too.
>
> What does everyone think?
I think you have your hands completely full with in-tree filesystems,
and opening the door to many new tests for out-of-tree filesystems could
lead to Too Much Work.
But simply adding the simple things in this patch to make generic tests
work seems fairly harmless; it should be a one-shot deal, with no ongoing load.
So from where I sit I don't see a big problem with a patch like this.
Adding a lot of reiser4 specific tests is probably a different question,
though.
In theory it shouldn't be hard for out-of-tree filesystems to maintain
their own tree of tests which could just drop in under tests/ right?
-Eric
>> Signed-off-by: Dushan Tcholich <dusanc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> --- xfstests.orig/common/rc 2014-12-14 15:17:59.000000000 +0100
>> +++ xfstests/common/rc 2014-12-15 19:40:36.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -622,7 +622,7 @@
>> xfs)
>> def_blksz=`echo $MKFS_OPTIONS|sed -rn 's/.*-b ?size= ?+([0-9]+).*/\1/p'`
>> ;;
>> - ext2|ext3|ext4|ext4dev|udf|btrfs)
>> + ext2|ext3|ext4|ext4dev|udf|btrfs|reiser4)
>> def_blksz=`echo $MKFS_OPTIONS| sed -rn 's/.*-b ?+([0-9]+).*/\1/p'`
>> ;;
>> esac
>> @@ -640,6 +640,7 @@
>> fi
>>
>> blocks=`expr $fssize / $blocksize`
>> + fssizeK=`expr $fssize / 1024`K
>
> Is mkfs.resier4 really unable to take a byte or block size count for
> the filesystem size?
>
>>
>> if [ "$HOSTOS" == "Linux" ]; then
>> devsize=`blockdev --getsize64 $SCRATCH_DEV`
>> @@ -665,6 +666,9 @@
>> btrfs)
>> $MKFS_BTRFS_PROG $MKFS_OPTIONS -b $fssize $SCRATCH_DEV
>> ;;
>> + reiser4)
>> + ${MKFS_PROG}.$FSTYP $MKFS_OPTIONS -y -b $blocksize $SCRATCH_DEV $fssizeK
>> + ;;
>
> You need to add support for MKFS_REISER4_PROG, etc. into
> common/config
>
>> *)
>> _notrun "Filesystem $FSTYP not supported in _scratch_mkfs_sized"
>> ;;
>>
>> --- xfstests.orig/common/config 2014-12-14 15:17:59.000000000 +0100
>> +++ xfstests/common/config 2014-12-12 13:27:40.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -258,6 +256,9 @@
>> # acls & xattrs aren't turned on by default on reiserfs
>> export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o acl,user_xattr $REISERFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS"
>> ;;
>> + reiser4)
>> + export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$REISER4_MOUNT_OPTIONS
>> + ;;
>> gfs2)
>> # acls aren't turned on by default on gfs2
>> export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o acl $GFS2_MOUNT_OPTIONS"
>> @@ -302,6 +303,9 @@
>> reiserfs)
>> export MKFS_OPTIONS="$REISERFS_MKFS_OPTIONS -q"
>> ;;
>> + reiser4)
>> + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$REISER4_MKFS_OPTIONS
>> + ;;
>
> whitespae damage.
>
>> gfs2)
>> export MKFS_OPTIONS="$GFS2_MKFS_OPTIONS -O -p lock_nolock"
>> ;;
>> @@ -322,6 +326,9 @@
>> reiserfs)
>> export FSCK_OPTIONS="--yes"
>> ;;
>> + reiser4)
>> + export FSCK_OPTIONS="--yes"
>> + ;;
>
> Whitespace damage. You could also just do:
>
> - reiserfs)
> + reiser*)
>
> You also need to add the setup checks to the top of common/rc (i.e
> after the "check for correct setup" comment).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
