On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 05:05:27PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:34:38PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:48:41PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > Can you submit this for xfstests? > > > > > > > This is actually something I wanted to ask you guys about. There are > > a series of ext4-specific tests that I could potentially add, but I > > wasn't sure how welcome they would be in xfstests. Assuming that > > ext4-specific tests would be welcome, is there a number range for > > these ext4-specific tests that I should use? > > Dave actually has an outstanding series to move tests from the toplevel > directory to directories for categories. And a whole lot more stuff, like a separate results directory, being able to run just a directory of tests rather than a group (e.g. just run ext4 specific tests), being able to use names rather than numbers for tests (not quite there yet), being able to exclude different tests (e.g. for older distro testing with wont-fix bugs), etc. Basically, all those things I talked about at the LSF/MM conference about making xfstests easier to use, develop and deploy for the wider filesystem community are started in the patchsets here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-07/msg00361.html http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-07/msg00373.html "This moves all the tests into a ./tests subdirectory, and sorts them into classes of related tests. Those are: tests/generic: valid for all filesystems tests/shared: valid for a limited number of filesystems tests/xfs: xfs specific tests tests/btrfs btrfs specific tests tests/ext4 ext4 specific tests tests/udf udf specific tests Each directory has it's own group file to determine what groups the tests are associated with. Tests are run in exactly the same was as before, but when trying to run individual tests you need to specify the class as well. e.g. the old way: # ./check 001 The new way: # ./check generic/001 ...." > We already have a lot of > btrfs-specific tests that have a separate directory, as well as xfs > specific ones, ext4 would just follow this model. For this specific > test it actually seems fairly generic except for the commit interval, > so I'd love to run it for all filesystems, just setting the interval for > ext4. Yeah, anything that is not deeply fileystem specific should be written as a generic test so that it can run on all filesystems. If it's mostly generic, with a small fs specific extension, that extension is easy to do under a 'if [ $FSTYP = "ext4" ]; then' branch.... > > BTW, we have an extension to xfstests that we've been using inside > > Google where Google-internal tests have a "g" prefix (i.e., g001, > > g002, etc.). That way we didn't need to worry about conflicts between > > newly added upstream xfstests, and ones which were added internally. > > Would it make sense to start using some kind of prefix such as "e001" > > for ext2/3/4 specific tests? No. The whole point of moving to multiple directories is to allow easy extension for domain specific tests without having to hack up the check script or play other games with test naming. Duplicate names in different test subdirectories are most certainly allowed. > Can you take a look at Dave's series if that helps you? I haven't > really reviewed it much myself yet, but I'll try to get to it ASAP. Well, I'd apprepciate it if somebody looked at it. It's been almost a month since I posted it and all I've heard is crickets so far... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
