On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 06:03:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 08:49:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 05:10:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > The user-space FUSE thing does indeed work reasonably well. > > > > > > It performs horribly badly if you care about things like that, though. > > > > > > In fact, your own numbers kind of show that: > > > > > > ntfs/default: 670 tests, 55 failures, 211 skipped, 34783 seconds > > > ntfs3/default: 664 tests, 67 failures, 206 skipped, 8106 seconds > > > > > > and that's kind of the point of ntfs3. > > > > Sure, although if you run fstress in parallel ntfs3 will lock up, the > > system hard, and it has at least one lockdep deadlock complaints. > > It's not up to me, but personally, I'd feel better if *someone* at > > Paragon Software responded to Darrrick and my queries about their > > quality assurance, and/or made commitments that they would at least > > *try* to fix the problems that about 5 minutes of testing using > > fstests turned up trivially. > > <cough> Yes, my aim was to gauge their interest in actively QAing the > driver's current problems so that it doesn't become one of the shabby > Linux filesystem drivers, like <cough>ntfs. > > Note I didn't even ask for a particular percentage of passing tests, > because I already know that non-Unix filesystems fail the tests that > look for the more Unix-specific behaviors. > > I really only wanted them to tell /us/ what the baseline is. IMHO the > silence from them is a lot more telling. Both generic/013 and > generic/475 are basic "try to create files and read and write data to > them" exercisers; failing those is a red flag. > Konstantin has wrote about these thing see below. On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 10:20:26 +0000, Konstantin Komarov wrote: > xfstests are being one of our standard test suites among others. > Currently we have the 'generic/339' and 'generic/013' test cases > failing, working on it now. Other tests either pass or being skipped > (due to missing features e.g. reflink). Source: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/7538540ab82e4b398a0203564a1f1b23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Also code tells that xfstests is being used in Paragon. In ntfs3/file.c: /* * Unwritten area * NTFS is not able to store several unwritten areas * Activate 'ntfs_sparse_cluster' to zero new allocated clusters * * Dangerous in case: * 1G of sparsed clusters + 1 cluster of data => * valid_size == 1G + 1 cluster * fallocate(1G) will zero 1G and this can be very long * xfstest 016/086 will fail without 'ntfs_sparse_cluster' */ /*ntfs_sparse_cluster(inode, NULL, vcn, * min(vcn_v - vcn, clen)); */ I'm just bringing this thing up because so many has asked and Konstantin has not responded recently. Hopefully he will soon. Of course is it little bit worrying that example generic/013 still fails after almoust year has passed and Konstantin said he is working on it. And it seems that more tests fails than beginning of review process. > --D > > > I can even give them patches and configsto make it trivially easy for > > them to run fstests using KVM or GCE.... > > > > - Ted
