On 2014-05-14 16:04:47, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I > > >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to. > > I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might > encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start > using it. > > For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs, > and pretty quickly found problems. (I suspect the same problem exists > in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler > and less scary.) The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test > unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to > Dave once they are cleaned up a bit. Oh, that sounds interesting. I haven't seen these patches, but I expect they would be pretty easy for me to extend for testing eCryptfs. That has been on my todo list for a long time but I haven't spent much time working on eCryptfs lately. BTW, you can use this email as a supporting data point for your first paragraph. :) Tyler
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
