linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add support for ext4dev FSTYP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1106021639230.3931@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:44:07 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	"Amir G." <amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	sandeen@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, sergey57@...il.com,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add support for ext4dev FSTYP

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Amir G. wrote:

--snip--
> 
> Ted actually brought this up in our ext4 developers meeting on LSF.
> He said we could register an ext4 module with the ext4dev external symbols
> and it would be useful for testing, since we already have all those tools that
> are aware of ext4dev.

I know, but my point is still valid. why to introduce non-existing FSTYP
into other tools, this is not proper course of action. If the goal is
really resurrect ext4dev we should do this first.

> 
> I  am still using a more low-tech method of cloning ext4 (sed) to build
> a standalone ext4dev module for testing, but it's the same principle.
> 
> >>
> >>
--snip--
> >>
> >> So, yes, it's true. There are other ways to accomplish what I am doing,
> >> but I am going out of my way to try to make the life of developers and testers
> >> easier and you are doing the exact opposite by raising objections to a rather
> >> trivial and harmless patch.
> >
> > What is easier for testers and developers ? I fail to see the reason for
> > including non-existing FSTYP into xfstests while it should be forgotten
> > by now. Just provide sources with whatever fs name you choose (or just
> > patches for ext4 preferably), provide patches to e2fsprogs and patches to
> > xfstests if you want people to test with it. And it should be easy for every
> > tester, or developer to use it, shouldn't it ? Is that a problem ?
> 
> Yes, it is a problem. You are thinking in terms of a developer who builds
> new kernels on a daily basis.
> Back in the time, when I developed next3, I asked some friend and
> people in the community
> if they could test it.
> It turned out that they don't even know how to build a kernel and they
> don't want
> to invest the time in doing that.
> This is when I realized that to get to a wider audience of testers, I
> need to make the testing
> process E A S Y !
> 
> And by E A S Y, I mean:
> 1. Take a Fedora 15 system
> 2. download http://next3.sourceforge.net/files/1.0.13/ext4dev_snapshots-1.0.13-x86_64.tar.gz
> 3. tar xfz ext4dev_snapshots-1.0.13-x86_64.tar.gz && cd ext4dev_snapshots-1.0.13
> 4. make && sudo make install && sudo make test

So you're saying that you can not patch xfstests (and other) sources in the
make time ??

Thanks!
-Lukas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html