linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/6][RFC] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO

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.2.00.1402181536110.2216@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
>