Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Change fstrim behaviour to be consistent with upstream version

["Lukáš Czerner" <lczerner@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:33:36 -0400
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> Cc: Tomas Racek <tracek@redhat.com>, lczerner@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Change fstrim behaviour to be consistent with
>     upstream version
> 
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:04:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > If we have duplicate code (i.e. a copy of the upstream utility) or
> > the local tool can be completely replaced by the upstream tool,
> > then we should use upstream and remove the local copy completely.
> > Distros have been shipping fstrim for long enough now that most
> > people running testing on upstream kernels will have it installed...
> > 
> > Adding a _require_fstrim() function that checks for the upstream
> > version of fstrim to be installed for each test that requires it
> > would go along with this.
> 
> I would also vote for just using the upstream util-linux fstrim.  Not
> quite sure what the history was here, but it might have been that the
> xfstests one actually was the earlier version.  Lukas, any opinions?
> 

The local xfstests version was indeed the earlier version and it was
not even in the util-linux back then. So now, when we already have
fstrim in util-linux and most distributions already ship it, I do
not see any reason for maintaining the local copy anymore.

I agree that we should be using upstream fstrim and remove the local
version completely.

Thanks!
-Lukas

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs