Re: [PATCH] fstests: reduce runtime of check -n

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 3:40 PM David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:09:35 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:24 PM David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> > > > Actually I'm not sure what's this line for. We get $list by "cd $SRC_DIR; echo $1",
> > > > is there any chance to have "$SRC_DIR" in $t (or $test_dir) ?
> > >
> > > Indeed, this line can be dropped. One minor change in behaviour here is
> > > that a test pattern with a wacky path prefix e.g. ../tests/xfs/00? will
> > > no longer work. I think breaking such patterns is okay, but it could
> > > also be resolved by more carefully extracting the last two path
> > > components.
> > >
> >
> > I didn't want to drop it because I didn't want to change legacy behavior.
> > When user's cwd is fstests root directory, it may be natural for some
> > users to use bash auto completion to run the command
> > ./check tests/generic/001
> >
> > so there may well be users out these that pass test names including
> > the tests/ prefix and check has always trimmed this prefix.
>
> Ah, yes, understood.
>
> > There is something a bit confusing about expanding of bash
> > patterns:
> >
> > When the user uses this syntax:
> > ./check tests/generic/00?
> >
> > the shell expands that pattern to a list of 9 arguments passed to
> > ./check tests/generic/001  tests/generic/002 ...
> >
> > But when the user uses the documented syntax:
> > ./check generic/00?
> > check gets a single argument and $(cd $SRC_DIR; echo $1)
> > expands this single argument to a list
> >
> > All the above is existing behavior which my patch should
> > not have changed.
>
> The example I gave was "../tests/xfs/00?", which does get broken by this
> change. It's relative to SRC_DIR and independent of check parameter
> expansion. As mentioned, I think it's obscure enough usage that this
> breakage shouldn't be worth bothering about.
>

I agree.
Users of tests/xfs/* may be out there (due to bash auto complete)
Any other prefix, including ../tests/ is far less likely to exist in the wild
(famous last words)

Thanks,
Amir.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux