On 1/7/14, 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Gents, > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> >>> On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what >>>>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading >>>>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the >>>>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option >>>>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, >>>> Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random >>>> behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, >>>> I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? >>>> >>>> I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to >>>> be sure. >>> >>> I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable >>> random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for >>> specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant >>> on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So >>> even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high >>> time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this >>> behaviour. Thanks, >> >> Yeah, you're probably right. And the ancient xfstests history seems to >> be lost in the mists of time, at least as far as I can see. So I'm ok >> with this but let's let Dave & SGI chime in too just to be certain. > > I did not have success locating the history prior to what we have posted on > oss. I agree that it was likely added so that tests that expose output from > random into golden output files will have the same results across arches. > Maybe this is still of concern for folks who use a different c library with the > kernel. > > Looks there are quite a few callers. IMO if we're going to remove this we > should fix the tests first. Or first, determine if they really need fixing. Did you find tests which actually contain the random results in the golden output? -Eric > -Ben > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
