[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191024083713.GB13520@dell5510>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 10:37:15 +0200
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Yong Sun <yosun@...e.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: "New" ext4 features tests in LTP
Hi Ted, Jan,
> Yeah, I believe this may be useful to implement in fstests in some fs
> agnostic way.
Thank you both for reviewing LTP tests.
> > > ext4-nsec-timestamps [6]
> > > --------------------
> > > Directory containing the shell script which is used to test nanosec timestamps
> > > of ext4.
> > This basically tests that the file system supports nanosecond
> > timestamps, with a 0.3% false positive failure rate. Again, why?
> > > ext4-subdir-limit [9]
> > > -----------------
> > > Directory containing the shell script which is used to test subdirectory limit
> > > of ext4. According to the kernel documentation, we create more than 32000
> > > subdirectorys on the ext4 filesystem.
> > This is a valid test, although it's not what I would call a "high
> > value" test. (As in, it's testing maybe a total of four simple lines
> > of code that are highly unlikely to fail.)
> These two may be IMHO worth carrying over to fstests in some form. The other
> tests seem either already present in various fstests configs we run or
> pointless as Ted wrote.
As Sero already volunteered to contribute them to fstests (thanks Sero!),
I'll send a patch to delete them from LTP.
> Honza
Kind regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists