On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon 12-02-18 13:46:48, Xiong Zhou wrote: >> Stress test for fanotify and inotify. Exercise fanotify and >> inotify user interfaces in loop while other stress tests going >> on in the watched test directory. >> >> Watching slab object inotify_inode_mark size, report fail >> it increases too fast. This may lead to a crash if OOM killer >> invoked. >> >> kernel commit related to the fixes in v4.15-rc1: >> 0d6ec07 fsnotify: pin both inode and vfsmount mark >> >> Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <xzhou@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm sorry for chiming in so late but I was on vacation. Just one question: > Currently, all inotify and fanotify tests are part of LTP. Is there any > good reason for putting this particular test to fstests and not LTP? > Specifically I've refrained from putting notification framework tests to > fstests because there's practically no relation of it to implementation of > any particular filesystem. Also I'd prefer not to have fanotify / inotify > tests in two different frameworks... > I second that. Also, Eryu did not chime in yet (and Dave probably did not look closely), but I think fstests in general try to refrain from single purpose test programs such as fsnotify_stress. Xiong, If you do choose to implement an LTP test as Jan recommended, please base it on top of my patches to convert LTP inotify tests to new lib https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/pull/246. Thanks, Amir. -- 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
