On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 03:39:17PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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. That seems fair enough, though I do wonder if we should try to structure the common code to make it easier to add/maintain support like this. > Adding a lot of reiser4 specific tests is probably a different question, > though. Yup, and that's my main concern. > 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? Yes, the high level scripts source fs specific tests from tests/$FSTYP, so such test directories would be easy to maintain as out of tree patches. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
