On 07.06.2013 16:50, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/7/13 5:29 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:18:58AM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote: >>> (cc Arne for far-progs discussion) >>> >>> On Thu, June 06, 2013 at 19:54 (+0200), Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 6/6/13 10:20 AM, Jan Schmidt wrote: >>>>> Basic send / receive functionality test for btrfs. Requires current >>>>> version of fsstress built (-x support). Relies on fssum tool, which is >>>>> not part of the test suite but can skip the test if it is missing. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Schmidt <list....@jan-o-sch.net> >>>> >>>> w/o commenting on the test itself, I'm a little uneasy about requiring >>>> some external, not-widely-installed tool for this to run. The fear is >>>> that it won't be run as often as it could/should be. >>> >>> The main purpose is to have it run by developers changing something around >>> btrfs >>> send / receive and probably the backref walker (while there exists a >>> separate >>> test not requiring fssum for backrefs). I think we can get them to install >>> fssum. >> >> There's no point in having tests that require you to go find >> something else before the tests can be run. That's been tried >> before, and it doesn't work - the test just won't get run by >> the majority of people who run xfstests. >> >>>> Could the same test be done w/o fssum, or should we maybe put a copy >>>> of fssum into xfstests/src/fssum.c ? >>> >>> I don't know any adequate replacement for fssum in this case. The purpose >>> is to >>> build a checksum for a whole file system tree, including data and partly >>> metadata. >>> >>> I don't feel like copying fssum from far-progs into xfstests, though it >>> probably >>> won't hurt much. However, I cannot promise we won't make changes to it for >>> far-progs, probably creating two incompatible versions of fssum in the >>> wild. Arne? >>> >>>> Or does fssum exist in any standard distro package? >>> >>> It doesn't. Perhaps Josef can hurry and make a Fedora package for it, if >>> that >>> prevents a separate copy to xfstests :-) >> >> No, it doesn't. Packages would be needed for debian, suse, SLES, >> RHEL, etc for that to be a useful method of distribution. Just dump >> a snapshot of the utility in the xfstests src dir so we don't have >> to care about distribution issues... > > Yup I agree with this, if it's not widely available or replaceable by more > common tools, let's just put a snapshot in xfstests.
I'm fine with that, too. -Arne > > -Eric > >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
