From: Amir Goldstein Subject: Re: CrashMonkey: A Framework to Systematically Test File-System Crash Consistency Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:32:41 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20170815173349.GA17774@li70-116.members.linode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Josef Bacik , Ext4 , linux-xfs , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.og, Ashlie Martinez To: Vijay Chidambaram Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com ([209.85.218.52]:35595 "EHLO mail-oi0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752685AbdHOUcn (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:32:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Vijay Chidambaram wrote: > Hi Josef and Amir, > ... > > @Amir: Given that Josef's code is already in the kernel, do you think > changing CrashMonkey code would be useful? We are always happy to > provide something for upstream, but we want to be sure how much work > would be involved. > Simply put, people (myself included) are more likely to use CrashMonkey if it uses upstream kernel and/or if it brings valuable functionality to filesystem testing, beyond what log-writes already does - I am have not studies either tools yet to be able to determine if that is the case. Cheers, Amir.