On 6/7/13 5:29 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:18:58AM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote: >> (cc Arne for far-progs discussion) >> >> On Thu, June 06, 2013 at 19:54 (+0200), Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 6/6/13 10:20 AM, Jan Schmidt wrote: >>>> Basic send / receive functionality test for btrfs. Requires current >>>> version of fsstress built (-x support). Relies on fssum tool, which is >>>> not part of the test suite but can skip the test if it is missing. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> w/o commenting on the test itself, I'm a little uneasy about requiring >>> some external, not-widely-installed tool for this to run. The fear is >>> that it won't be run as often as it could/should be. >> >> The main purpose is to have it run by developers changing something around btrfs >> send / receive and probably the backref walker (while there exists a separate >> test not requiring fssum for backrefs). I think we can get them to install fssum. > > There's no point in having tests that require you to go find > something else before the tests can be run. That's been tried > before, and it doesn't work - the test just won't get run by > the majority of people who run xfstests. > >>> Could the same test be done w/o fssum, or should we maybe put a copy >>> of fssum into xfstests/src/fssum.c ? >> >> I don't know any adequate replacement for fssum in this case. The purpose is to >> build a checksum for a whole file system tree, including data and partly metadata. >> >> I don't feel like copying fssum from far-progs into xfstests, though it probably >> won't hurt much. However, I cannot promise we won't make changes to it for >> far-progs, probably creating two incompatible versions of fssum in the wild. Arne? >> >>> Or does fssum exist in any standard distro package? >> >> It doesn't. Perhaps Josef can hurry and make a Fedora package for it, if that >> prevents a separate copy to xfstests :-) > > No, it doesn't. Packages would be needed for debian, suse, SLES, > RHEL, etc for that to be a useful method of distribution. Just dump > a snapshot of the utility in the xfstests src dir so we don't have > to care about distribution issues... Yup I agree with this, if it's not widely available or replaceable by more common tools, let's just put a snapshot in xfstests. -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
