On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:22:53AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2011-06-02, at 8:59 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > I don't really mind adding ext4dev to FSTYP case statements, it > > -is- something which blkid could, in theory, still return, and > > making xfstests cope with that and try to invoke fsck -t ext4dev > > doesn't bother me too much. It is sadly an fs type embedded into > > a few tools. > > I'm perfectly OK with using ext4dev as a filesystem type that allows testing > changes to ext4 on a system that is already running ext4 as the root fs. My take on this is that way too much time has been spent this subject. Being able to use ext4dev is useful, and given that we have all of this support in our existing system tools, why not use it to make ext4 development more efficient/easy? As a bonus you can build the ext4dev as a module, and that means you the compile/edit/debug cycle can be much faster since you can avoid doing a reboot, for those circumstances where using KVM is not possible/convenient. Personally, I normally use KVM these days, but I can imagine situations where using ext4dev would be a better way to go. For example, I'd probably use KVM on my laptop, but for testing on production servers in a data center, I'd probably use ext4dev, for a variety of local deployment considerations that's not worth going into here. That being said, whether or not we modify xfstests seems to be a moot point. In order for me to do my bigalloc development, I've been patching common.rc so that "/sbin/mkfs.$FSTYP" --> "mkfs.$FSTYP" and "/sbin/fsck -t $FSTYP" --> "fsck.$FSTYP". It's a 3 line change. Not a big deal. I've been making this change using /bin/ed after installing xfstests. So if the XFS folks want to veto this change --- who cares? It's not hard to make the change locally in order to make xfstests. On the other hand, given that xfstests is using "mkfs.$FSTYP", I don't see why it's so important that it clings to "fsck -t $FSTYP" instead of using "fsck.$FSTYP". There's no real benefit to calling the fsck driver; it's just an extra fork and exec, and xfstests is being inconsistent by insisting on the use of the fsck driver, but not using the mkfs driver. But that being said, hacking xfstests is not hard, and if Dave and/or Eric feels strongly about resisting this change, it's not worth a lot of time, one way or another.... - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
