On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:23:29PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: > Greetings, > > This proposal is on behalf of Me, Nirjhar and Ritesh. We would like to submit > a proposal on centralizing filesystem and device configurations within xfstests > and maybe a further discussion on some of the open ideas listed by Ted here [3]. > More details are mentioned below. > > ** Background ** > There was a discussion last year at LSFMM [1] about creating a central fs-config > store, that can then be used by anyone for testing different FS > features/configurations. This can also bring an awareness among other developers > and testers on what is being actively maintained by FS maintainers. We recently > posted an RFC [2] for centralizing filesystem configuration which is under > review. The next step we are considering is to centralize device configurations > within xfstests itself. In line with this, Ted also suggested a similar idea (in > point A) [3], where he proposed specifying the device size for the TEST and > SCRATCH devices to reduce costs (especially when using cloud infrastructure) and > improve the overall runtime of xfstests. > > Recently Dave introduced a feature [4] to run the xfs and generic tests in > parallel. This patch creates the TEST and SCRATCH devices at runtime without > requiring them to be specified in any config file. However, at this stage, the > automatic device initialization appears to be somewhat limited. We believe that > centralizing device configuration could help enhance this functionality as well. Right, the point of check-parallel is to take away the need to specify devices completely. I've already added support for the LOGWRITES_DEV, and I'm in the process of adding LOGDEV and RTDEV support for both test and scratch devices. At this point, the need for actual actual device specification in the config files goes away. What I am expecting to need is a set of fields that specify the *size* of the devices so that the hard-coded image file sizes in the check-parallel script go away.
