On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:56:03AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> Instead of setting the vars TEST/SCRATCH_DEV to overlay base dirs, >> allow setting the vars SCRATCH/TEST_BASE_MNT, to configure where >> the base fs is mounted and where overlay dirs will be created. >> For example: >> >> -export TEST_DEV=/mnt/base/test/ovl >> -export SCRATCH_DEV=/mnt/base/scratch/ovl >> +export TEST_BASE_MNT=/mnt/base/test >> +export SCRATCH_BASE_MNT=/mnt/base/scratch > > [sorry for the late review, I came back from holiday then played with > this patchset for a while] > > Hmm, I noticed that there're TEST/SCRATCH_BASE_MNT and > TEST/SCRATCH_BASE_DIR and OVERLAY_BASE_DIR introduced. They seem a bit > complex and can be confusing to users. I'm wondering if they can be > simplified somehow? e.g. use TEST/SCRATCH_BASE_MNT only, no ..BASE_DIR > vars, no OVERLAY_BASE_DIR (which seems not necessary to me, it only adds > another level to the path structure). I find the extra level necessary. For example, I use the same BASE_DEV for other tests, so I would like to isolate overlayfs tests under ovl dir. If we were to support mkfs of BASE_DEV that would have been different but we don't. However, I will try to get rid of some of the variables to reduce confusion. IMO, _BASE_DIR, which replaces the bogus TEST/SCRATCH_DEV is important for tests that mount their own custom overlays, e.g. overlay/005. I will try to see how this can be simplified or better explained. Please give this another thought as well. > > And I gave the variables naming a second thought, I think > TEST/SCRATCH_BASE_MNT are confusing, they're used only in overlayfs > testing, but the names seem to imply they're generic enough and useful > in other filesystems testing too. I'd like to name them with little > confusion. OTOH, I agree that adding "OVERLAY_" prefix is not good > enough either (names too long). > > I'm not good at naming variables.., just a random idea in my head, how > about using OVL_ prefix? i.e. > > OVL_TEST/SCRATCH_BASE_MNT, a bit shorter, and indicates they're only > useful in overlayfs testing, but OVL_ prefix introduces inconsistency > (with OVERLAY_UPPER_DIR etc., perhaps we can change all OVERLAY_ to > OVL_?). > Yes, I considered OVL_ as well. I guess it is the least worse option. No problem to align OVL_UPPER/LOWER_DIR. Will do. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
