On Fri, June 07, 2013 at 16:51 (+0200), Arne Jansen wrote: > On 07.06.2013 16:50, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> 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. > > I'm fine with that, too. To prevent more agreement mails: I'll send a v2 including fssum.c, but probably not today. -Jan > -Arne > >> >> -Eric >> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dave. >>> >> > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
