> -----Original Message----- > From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@xxxxxxx> > Hi Tim, > > > Minor nit, but the subject line has nsfs when I think it means ntfs. > > -- Tim > Thanks, will be fixed in v2. > > How about XFS using 300 MB vs 16 MB but using different code paths? > How big deal it'd be if we require 300 MB in case testing on kernel with XFS > enabled and xfsprogs installed? > > https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/YwyYUzvlxfIGpTwo@yuki/ > https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/YwyljsgYIK3AvUr+@pevik/ I'm not personally aware of any uses of XFS in embedded projects, let alone ones with a filesystem size of less than 300 MB. So I think it would be OK. Such a test might hit some lightly used codepaths, so it might have more likelihood to reveal a bug in XFS. But if literally no one is using XFS in this configuration, I'm not sure how valuable the testing would be. That said, my knowledge of the embedded ecosystem is not comprehensive. I just posted a question about this on the celinux-dev and Linux-embedded mailing lists. I let you know if I hear of anyone using an XFS filesystem less than 300 MB in size in their embedded Linux project or device. -- Tim
