On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:04:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > If we have duplicate code (i.e. a copy of the upstream utility) or > the local tool can be completely replaced by the upstream tool, > then we should use upstream and remove the local copy completely. > Distros have been shipping fstrim for long enough now that most > people running testing on upstream kernels will have it installed... > > Adding a _require_fstrim() function that checks for the upstream > version of fstrim to be installed for each test that requires it > would go along with this. I would also vote for just using the upstream util-linux fstrim. Not quite sure what the history was here, but it might have been that the xfstests one actually was the earlier version. Lukas, any opinions? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
