> > -----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 Thanks a lot, Tim! Kind regards, Petr
