linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)

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]

Date:	Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:21:23 -0500
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-aio\@kvack.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@...net.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)

Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:03:14PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com> writes:
>> 
>> >> Can you write a test (or set of) for fstests that exercises this new
>> >> functionality? I'm not worried about performance, just
>> >> correctness....
>> >
>> > Sure thing. Can you point me at the fstests repo? A quick google
>> > search reveals lots of projects named fstests, most of them abandoned.
>> 
>> I think he's referring to xfstests.  Still, I think that's the wrong
>> place for functional testing.  ltp would be better, imo.
>
> I don't follow. Can you explain why is xfstests be the wrong place
> to exercise this functionality and what makes ltp a better choice?

Right, I should have made a case for that.  ltp already has test cases
for system calls such as readv/writev (though they are woefully
inadequate).  It simply looked like a better fit to me.  For some reason
I view xfstests as a regression test suite, but I know that isn't
strictly true.

If you feel xfstests is a better place, and Ted makes a good case for
that choice, then that's fine with me.  I'm not, as Ted worried,
insisting on putting test cases into ltp.  :)  I was expressing my
opinion, and am happy for the dialog.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/