[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ED61324.6010300@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:51:48 +0800
From: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
CC: <ira.weiny@...el.com>, <fstests@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/XXX: Add xfs/XXX
On 2020/4/14 0:30, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> This might be a good time to introduce a few new helpers:
>
> _require_scratch_dax ("Does $SCRATCH_DEV support DAX?")
> _require_scratch_dax_mountopt ("Does the fs support the DAX mount options?")
> _require_scratch_daX_iflag ("Does the fs support FS_XFLAG_DAX?")
Hi Darrick,
Now, I am trying to introduce these new helpers and have some questions:
1) There are five testcases related to old dax implementation, should we
only convert them to new dax implementation or make them compatible with
old and new dax implementation?
2) I think _require_xfs_io_command "chattr" "x" is enough to check if fs
supports FS_XFLAG_DAX. Is it necessary to add
_require_scratch_dax_iflag()? like this:
_require_scratch_dax_iflag()
{
_require_xfs_io_command "chattr" "x"
}
Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists