Re: [PATCH] Reiser4 initial implementation

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 03:39:17PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 12/15/14 3:06 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:19:43PM +0100, Dushan Tcholich wrote:
> >>
> >> This is initial xfstests implementation for Reiser4 filesystem.
> >>
> > 
> > Policy question to the wider audience: should we support out of tree
> > filesystems in fstests? I can't verify the patches nor maintain
> > support for such filesystems, nor is there a wide developer or
> > distro demand for testing such filesystems. If there's only one or
> > two developers that need support for reiser4, then it might be best
> > for to maintain the xfstests patches out of tree, too.
> > 
> > What does everyone think?
> 
> I think you have your hands completely full with in-tree filesystems,
> and opening the door to many new tests for out-of-tree filesystems could
> lead to Too Much Work.
> 
> But simply adding the simple things in this patch to make generic tests
> work seems fairly harmless; it should be a one-shot deal, with no ongoing load.
> So from where I sit I don't see a big problem with a patch like this.

That seems fair enough, though I do wonder if we should try to
structure the common code to make it easier to add/maintain support
like this.

> Adding a lot of reiser4 specific tests is probably a different question,
> though.

Yup, and that's my main concern.

> In theory it shouldn't be hard for out-of-tree filesystems to maintain
> their own tree of tests which could just drop in under tests/ right?

Yes, the high level scripts source fs specific tests from
tests/$FSTYP, so such test directories would be easy to maintain as
out of tree patches.

Cheers,

Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com