On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 01:04:24PM +0100, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > > Ok, so it's a "fallocate" test group, then? > > More like "fsx_fsstress" group, which might sound as a terrible name > for the group but it explains it quite well. So if you do not have > anything against that I'll call the new group "fsx_fsstress" How about "block_map" group? I like Dave's suggestion about naming the group after what it is trying to test, as opposed to how it does that testing. This is also consistent with how the other tests groups are named in xfstests. However, extents are an implementation strategy, and you might just as easily use this test to verify whether or not the punch hole functionality for indirect block maps worked correctly. What I think using fsx and fstress together have in common is that it's a great way of stress testing whatever the file system uses for creating and maintaining the translation map between (inode, logical block) to physical block, so that's why perhaps "block_map" might be a good test group name. Regards, - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
