From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Zorro Lang <zlang@kernel.org>, Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: remove _supported_fs
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 12:02:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241219170212.GA1585694@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241210160827.GA26559@lst.de>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 05:08:27PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I think the diffstat alone makes it pretty clear that moving away
> form that is a benefit, and it's also a lot easier to understand than
> that ext2 and ext3 magically run ext4 tests.
We talked about this on the weekly ext4 video chat, and I think what
we'd think is actually cleaner is to have a single directory for all
ext2/ext3/ext4 tests, and then eventually, have feature-specific
guards which skip a test if a particular feature isn't supported by a
particular file system.
It's always been my position that ext2, ext3, and ext4 are effectively
the same file system from a conceptual perspective, with multiple
implementations that support different subsets of file system
features. This includes /usr/src/linux/fs/ext2,
/usr/src/linux/fs/ext3 (before we removed it from more recent
rernels), /usr/src/linux/fs/ext4, HURD's implementation of ext2,
NetBSD/FreeBSD's implementation of ext2, etc.
So effectively, what I'm proposing is that we use xfstests/tests/ext4
effectively as "extN", which would be used when testing with
FSTYP=ext[234].
Yes, we'll need to do some cleanup to add feature guards (e.g.,
_require_metadata_journaling, and "_require_scratch_ext4_feature mmp")
instead of _exclude_fs ext2, but in the end, I think this will be
cleaner and easier to understand since we'll know exactly what the
test is testing.
Cheers,
- Ted
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-19 17:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-10 6:58 remove _supported_fs Christoph Hellwig
2024-12-10 6:58 ` [PATCH 1/4] generic/363: remove _supported_fs xfs Christoph Hellwig
2024-12-10 13:15 ` Brian Foster
2024-12-10 6:58 ` [PATCH 2/4] common: remove the $FSYP check in _cleanup_dump Christoph Hellwig
2024-12-10 6:58 ` [PATCH 3/4] ext-common: create a new test directory for ext* common tests Christoph Hellwig
2024-12-18 15:59 ` Jan Kara
2024-12-23 8:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-12-10 6:58 ` [PATCH 4/4] replace _supported_fs with _exclude_fs Christoph Hellwig
2024-12-10 13:00 ` remove _supported_fs Theodore Ts'o
2024-12-10 16:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-12-19 17:02 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241219170212.GA1585694@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zlang@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox