From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:5996 "EHLO ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750777AbaLOXST (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:18:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:18:12 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reiser4 initial implementation Message-ID: <20141215231812.GB2152@dastard> References: <20141215210631.GT24183@dastard> <548F5505.4050807@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <548F5505.4050807@sandeen.net> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Dushan Tcholich , fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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