Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

[Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1152 bytes --]

On 2014-05-14 16:04:47, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
> > >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.
> 
> I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might
> encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start
> using it.
> 
> For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs,
> and pretty quickly found problems.  (I suspect the same problem exists
> in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler
> and less scary.)  The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test
> unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to
> Dave once they are cleaned up a bit.

Oh, that sounds interesting. I haven't seen these patches, but I expect
they would be pretty easy for me to extend for testing eCryptfs. That
has been on my todo list for a long time but I haven't spent much time
working on eCryptfs lately.

BTW, you can use this email as a supporting data point for your first
paragraph. :)

Tyler

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]