On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:19:11PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > [ FWIW, the normal way to write an xfstest like this is to write a > small helper program that just does the renameat2() syscall (we > often use xfs_io to provide this) and everything is just shell > scripts to drive the helper program in the necessary way. We don't > directly check that mode, size, destination of a file is correct - > just stat(1) on the expected destinations is sufficient to capture > this information. stdout is captured by the test harness and used to match > against a golden output. If the match fails, the test fails. The other reason why it's really nice to use a small helper program is that it becomes much easier for file system developers to debug kernel problems without having to create their own single-shot C programs. It also becomes easier to debug a test failure by looking at the shell script and manually running the commands one at a time, perhaps changing some of the arguments after getting an xfstest failure from inside a VM running a test kernel, since the VM very often won't even have a C compiler. It also becomes easier to add new test just simply by updating the shell script, which is another win. > And finally, it needs comments to explain what the test is actually > testing - if you don't document what the test is supposed to be > checking, how do we know that it is testing is actually correct? Yes, please! - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
