Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:03:14PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> Can you write a test (or set of) for fstests that exercises this new >> >> functionality? I'm not worried about performance, just >> >> correctness.... >> > >> > Sure thing. Can you point me at the fstests repo? A quick google >> > search reveals lots of projects named fstests, most of them abandoned. >> >> I think he's referring to xfstests. Still, I think that's the wrong >> place for functional testing. ltp would be better, imo. > > I don't follow. Can you explain why is xfstests be the wrong place > to exercise this functionality and what makes ltp a better choice? Right, I should have made a case for that. ltp already has test cases for system calls such as readv/writev (though they are woefully inadequate). It simply looked like a better fit to me. For some reason I view xfstests as a regression test suite, but I know that isn't strictly true. If you feel xfstests is a better place, and Ted makes a good case for that choice, then that's fine with me. I'm not, as Ted worried, insisting on putting test cases into ltp. :) I was expressing my opinion, and am happy for the dialog. Cheers, Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
