On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 09:50:12AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 8/23/12 12:00 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:42:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> Sure, but you need to justify your arguments for keeping something > >> with evidence and logic - handwaving about wanting something is, and > >> always has been, insufficient justification. That's the part of the > >> process I'm talking about - that statements of need require > >> evidence, especially when you agreed to the removal at LSF in San > >> Fransisco a few months ago. My arguments at the time were: > >> > >> a) nobody is actually using it, > >> b) it has effectively been unmaintained since 2003 > >> c) it has no regression analysis or detection capability > >> d) it shares *very little* of xfstests > >> e) it gets in the way of cleaning up xfstests > >> f) there are far better workload generators that are being > >> actively maintained. > >> > >> And AFAIA, nothing has changed in the past few months. > > > > "In this case, SGI would like to keep the benchmark capability in xfstests in > > order have a better chance of catching performance regressions." There has > > been a been performance regression in the past few months (and there will be > > more in the future), we have had performance regressions internally too, and > > this has brought the value of having benchmarks in xfstests into sharp focus. > > "xfs has had performance regressions; xfstests contains bitrotted perf code" > > But that's not a justification for keeping bitrotted code. > > I think you finally answered the basic question Dave asked, and we learned > that SGI is not using the code which he proposes removing. > > <snip> > > > I understand that bench is bitrotted, but it still has some value even today. > > Not if nobody uses it. If it really had value it would be in use. > > > Phil has agreed to take this on as a project so the bitrot will be addressed. > > How's that been going in the 6 months since this patchset stalled? > > Can we get it moving again? Ext4 folks would like to see these changes > proceed as well. What issues remain, if any? AFAIC, none. But it will take me some time to rebase the patchsets on a current TOT as there are a bunch more tests and infrastructure changes since then, and I currently have my plate full. Eric (or anyone else), seeing as I'm not going to get back to this for a while yet, I'm happy for you to take over this patchset (and the --largefs patch set it is based on and rebase them on a current tree... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
