Re: [PATCH] xfs_io: changes to statx interface [ver #2]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am (literally) in the woods this week so can't really comment at length, but generally:
>
> xfs_io is useful to facilitate testing at times, but usually doesn't have tests built into the tool itself.
>

David,

Eric being the maintainer, so he gets to decide, but he is being
somewhat subtle.
There is no precedence AFAIK to tests within xfs_io.
Instead of comparing to stat with -c flag, you can make sure that
output of xfs_io -c 'statx -c'
is fully compatible to output of xfs_io -c 'stat -v' and do the test in scripts.

> And I think you are right that it is a poor fit for some of the testing you'd like to do.
> There is a src/ dir in xfstests for specialized C tests which get called by the test harness; that might also be a reasonable option.
>

That's actually the shortest path for you and there are quite a few
tests in xfstests that took
this path. It should be easy for you to copy & paste one of them.

That's not instead of adding xfs_io statx - just for tests that are
not natural to do with xfs_io.

> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:41 AM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Note that the intention is to put the testing of the syscall parameter
>> handling into LTP, along with testing of the symlink following and dirfd usage
>> since xfstests seems unsuitable for this.
>>
>> David
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux