[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:42:40 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-aio@...ck.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)
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?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists