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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1402181536110.2216@localhost.localdomain> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:42:10 +0100 (CET) From: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6][RFC] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:23:05 -0500 > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> > To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> > Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, > linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6][RFC] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for > fallocate > > 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. (it does not :) But I am still having trouble deciphering Al Viro code ;) > > 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. To be honest "block_map" group name does not mean anything to me. - "fallocate" is not really the right name as it does much more than that - "extents" is not the right name as there is not really anything extents specific. - "fsx_fsstress" while this gives information about how it is tested it's not immediately clear what it is good for. So I do not know and frankly I do not care very much about the name of this group so if anyone has a strong opinion about the name feel free to create such group. Thanks! -Lukas > > Regards, > > - Ted >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists