On 04/19/2017 07:12 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Eric, > > Am 19.04.2017 um 19:09 schrieb Eric Biggers: >> Hi Richard, >> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>>> >>>> Tested only on ext4. >>> >>> I hope you classify this patch as RFC then. >>> We'll have problems when you just develop and test for ext4. :-) >>> >> >> It's a little difficult for people to test stuff on UBIFS without a turn-key >> solution like kvm-xfstests where they can just run something like >> 'kvm-xfstests -c ext4,f2fs,ubifs -g encrypt'. >> >> I did post patches to add UBIFS support to xfstests and kvm-xfstests a few >> months ago; maybe you're interested in taking them over and working to get them >> merged? > > I assigned this talk already to David. > He can tell what the status is. > What I have right now is mostly similar to the previous patch for xfstests-dev that was submitted to the mailing list. I haven't looked into the xfstests-bld patch yet. To sumarize what happend so far: A while ago, I took a look at Erics xfstest patches and the similar patch series from Dongsheng Yang. Based on those, I got the xfstests running with UBIFS on nandsim inside a VM with fairly little changes. AFAIR there were two tests failing, one of them being generic/129, apparently because it exhausts the space on one of the UBI volumes, and another one for which a fix was provided. My work on the xfstests-dev patch was preempted by other projects, but I briefly got back to it when an O_TMPFILE regression was reported on the mtd mailing list. This should have been caught by generic/004 but wasn't because the UBIFS error message didn't match the grep pattern run on dmesg. Other such cases may exist. Today, after rebasing/porting my local changes to upstream xfstets-dev, I ran the tests against on both Richards UBIFS tree and Linus' tree. On both kernels I'm now getting 5 failing tests out of 94 (with one of them being generic/129 again). Further work on some of the test scripts is required. David
