On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 03:14:11PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> This test group requires that unionmount-testsuite is installed >> under src dir. >> >> These tests use tmpfs and have no need for test nor scratch partition. >> >> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> Eryu, >> >> unionmount-testsuite, written by David Howells, is a powerfull tool for >> validating "union mounts", which nowadays, mostly means overlayfs. >> >> The testsuite was enhanced with directory rename tests for kernel v4.10, >> and with constant inode number verification for kernel v4.12. >> The most recent repository is maintained on my github [1]. > > Are you planning to push all your enhancements to upstream? I don't mind pushing 'upstream' and don't mind becoming 'upstream' as well. I declared my 'master' branch forward-only a while ago, when Vivek showed interest to use it and I try to make sure that all changes that go into master branch are backward compat with older kernels. > Red Hat QE > is using unionmount-testsuite to test overlayfs :) But it's downloaded > from David's repo[1], which hasn't been updated for two years. > > [1] git://git.infradead.org/users/dhowells/unionmount-testsuite.git > Well, that repo is not so useful anymore for testing overlayfs on kernel >= 4.10 with OVERLAYFS_REDIRECT_DIR=y It fails some dir rename tests, which is easy to fix, but it's test coverage for directory rename with multiple layers is insufficient. >> >> The tool is written in python. By default, it uses tmpfs for the >> overlayfs layers and a complete run of all the tests in the most >> basic configuration takes ~10 seconds on my laptop. >> >> I have been using xfstests as a test harness to run unionmount-testsuite >> with several configuration (e.g. layers on same/non-same fs) and I am quite >> certain that more people can benefit from this setup. >> >> The proposed patch is how I use the harness, but it raises some questions: >> - How does xfstests community feel about relying on external repositories? > > I'd like to see either porting all the tests from external repositories > to fstests or keeping them separate as they're two independent > testsuites. I'm reluctant to make fstests rely on an external testsuite > and make fstests a wrapper of it. I think it's easier to maintain for > both projects, and things are simpler this way and well self-contained. > >> - How does xfstests community feel about including python sources in the >> xfstests repository? > > I think it's OK to include python sources if it's really needed. But we > tend to not add more dependencies to fstests, if we have better choice, > e.g. use perl instead. There's only one python script right now, > tools/sort-group, but it's not used by the tests. > So the bottom line is that I carry this patch myself and the many test cases that unionmount-testsuite adds for overlayfs won't be covered by a random overlayfs developer who runs ./check -g auto. I have no problem with this consequence myself, I understand the complications that an external project dependency brings. Just wanted to know if others feel differently. Cheers, Amir. -- 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
