Re: Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?

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

 



On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:48:58AM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> During one of my reviews for the punch hole tests patch set it was
> mentioned that it would be helpful to take the xfstests 145, 161,
> 175, 176, 185 and modify them such that they can run with out
> requiring the dmapi.  These tests contain some more interesting
> punch hole tests, but they dont normally run unless there is support
> for dmapi.
> 
> I did take a peek at them and I was thinking that if we decide to do
> this, we would probably need to do something like introduce a new
> set of source code that is similar to what is seen under the dmapi
> folder, but modified to use a generic interface instead of the dmapi
> libraries.  We could try to merge them into a single code path, but
> I think that may introduce more complexities than would be
> desirable.

Most of it should be doable using xfs_io.  If it's nessecary to write
new source files because of e.g. concurrency tests that we can't easily
do from xfs_io please add new source files to the src/ directory.

Also, please don't rewrite the actual existing dmapi test cases, but
add new ones testing these patterns using the fallocate interface, as
the coverage for the dmapi interface still is useful.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux