On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:33:36 -0400 > From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Tomas Racek <tracek@xxxxxxxxxx>, lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Change fstrim behaviour to be consistent with > upstream version > > 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? > The local xfstests version was indeed the earlier version and it was not even in the util-linux back then. So now, when we already have fstrim in util-linux and most distributions already ship it, I do not see any reason for maintaining the local copy anymore. I agree that we should be using upstream fstrim and remove the local version completely. Thanks! -Lukas _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
