Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752575AbaKKXWK (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:22:10 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36469 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752311AbaKKXWH (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:22:07 -0500 From: Jeff Moyer To: Dave Chinner Cc: Milosz Tanski , LKML , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-fsdevel\@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-aio\@kvack.org" , Mel Gorman , Volker Lendecke , Tejun Heo , "Theodore Ts'o" , Al Viro , Linux API , Michael Kerrisk , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only) References: <20141111064417.GT23575@dastard> <20141111214240.GV23575@dastard> X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:21:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141111214240.GV23575@dastard> (Dave Chinner's message of "Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:42:40 +1100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dave Chinner writes: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:03:14PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Milosz Tanski 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/