On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 09:07:30AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:16:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > As for the higher level question? The shared tests always confused the > > heck out of me. generic with the right feature checks seem like a much > > better idea. > > Agreed. I've sent out a patch series to bring the number of patches > in shared down to four. Here's what's left: > > shared/002 --- needs a feature test to somehow determine whether a > file system supports thousads of xattrs in a file (currently > on btrfs and xfs) I don't know of a good way to do that other than trying it. > shared/011 --- needs some way of determining that a file system > supports cgroup-aware writeback (currently enabled only for > ext4 and btrfs). Do we consider lack of support of > cgroup-aware writeback a bug? If so, maybe it doesn't need a > feature test at all? ...but for the ones that do, we need a test to make sure the reported accounting values aren't totally off in the stratosphere. I wonder, could we add a _require_scratch_cgroupwb that would assign a new cgroup, try to write a fixed amount of data (~64k) and then _notrun if the cgroup write back thing reported zero bytes written? > shared/032 --- needs a feature test to determine whether or not a file > system's mkfs supports detection of "foreign file systems". > e.g., whether or not it warns if you try overwrite a file > system w/o another file system. (Currently enabled by xfs and > btrfs; it doesn't work for ext[234] because e2fsprogs, because > I didn't want to break existing shell scripts, only warns when > it is used interactively. We could a way to force it to be > activated it points out this tests is fundamentally testing > implementation choices of the userspace utilities of a file > system. Does it belong in xfstests? : ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) > > shared/289 --- contains ext4, xfs, and btrfs mechanisms for > determining blocks which are unallocated. Has hard-coded > invocations to dumpe2fs, xfs_db, and /bin/btrfs. Huh? shared/289 looks like a pure ext* test to me.... # Copyright (c) 2012 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved. # # FS QA Test No. 289 # # Test overhead & df output for extN filesystems <confused> > These don't have obvious solutions. We could maybe add a _notrun if > adding the thousands of xattrs fails with an ENOSPC or related error > (f2fs uses something else). > > Maybe we just move shared/011 and move it generic/ w/o a feature test. > > Maybe we remove shared/032 altogether, since for e2fsprogs IMHO > the right place to put it is the regression test in e2fsprogs --- but > I know xfs has a different test philosophy for xfsprogs; and tha begs > the question of what to do for mkfs.btrfs. <shrug> I'm fine with leaving the test there for xfs since that's where we put all the xfsprogs tests anyway. :) --D > And maybe we just split up shared/289 to three different tests in > ext4/, xfs/, and btrfs/, since it would make the test script much > simpler to understand? > > What do people think? > > - Ted
