From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]:33613 "EHLO mail-io0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935207AbdDFOeD (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:34:03 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id f84so30699571ioj.0 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 07:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] RFC add blkdev tests v2 References: <1491484750-9164-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <20170406135524.GA12230@infradead.org> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <74f90aa0-bb3f-ba74-cdbc-d6e96be51376@kernel.dk> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:33:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170406135524.GA12230@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , Dmitry Monakhov Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/06/2017 07:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I still disagree with using xfstests for this. Even if we were going > to treat the block devices nodes as yet another file system that's not > what the patches do - they create specific virtual devices to test > for each test. > > I think the right way is to keep your patches as-is and copy the few > bits you use from xfstests into a new repository. That is exactly what my recommendation was at lsfmm as well - fork xfstest, prune bits we don't need, and off we go. I'll get around to it soonish. -- Jens Axboe