On 1/7/14, 2:10 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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? This should be easy enough to test by just hacking the lib/random.c with a new starting seed, right? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
