lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 0/7] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)
Date
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:03:14PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Milosz Tanski <milosz@adfin.com> writes:
>>
>> >> Can you write a test (or set of) for fstests that exercises this new
>> >> functionality? I'm not worried about performance, just
>> >> correctness....
>> >
>> > Sure thing. Can you point me at the fstests repo? A quick google
>> > search reveals lots of projects named fstests, most of them abandoned.
>>
>> I think he's referring to xfstests. Still, I think that's the wrong
>> place for functional testing. ltp would be better, imo.
>
> I don't follow. Can you explain why is xfstests be the wrong place
> to exercise this functionality and what makes ltp a better choice?

Right, I should have made a case for that. ltp already has test cases
for system calls such as readv/writev (though they are woefully
inadequate). It simply looked like a better fit to me. For some reason
I view xfstests as a regression test suite, but I know that isn't
strictly true.

If you feel xfstests is a better place, and Ted makes a good case for
that choice, then that's fine with me. I'm not, as Ted worried,
insisting on putting test cases into ltp. :) I was expressing my
opinion, and am happy for the dialog.

Cheers,
Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-12 00:41    [W:0.077 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site