linux-ext4 - Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

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: <20140514160447.GA3974@thunk.org>
Date:	Wed, 14 May 2014 16:04:47 +0000
From:	tytso@....edu
To:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	dchinner@...hat.com, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
> >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.

I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might
encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start
using it.

For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs,
and pretty quickly found problems.  (I suspect the same problem exists
in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler
and less scary.)  The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test
unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to
Dave once they are cleaned up a bit.

					- Ted
--
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