From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A20813AA38 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 08:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732264089; cv=none; b=MyQdD79dGtjpVi0mZXQIEzrh5yp6cuNNgy1ERUD0Xa5OM6scLTBkOg/6m04uLN/uZHziZzS9ggY4Ii2dbXNuNsDqQWfkgvNSrZbiirNDh19HfhcxtFlsfZsnk85Q/oGybJKFNmlJQJbmKez7yTu8WJG+vOissortmh0j8qgbR7w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732264089; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7AvK7v3NtLug/pQYlMvExQNdVc7duR4Op0BBmT6kOew=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Qdg7ju13HBxOIoUauTS/DaNch+BAA+MCmBLn64sXEqhrJqH8X7ds4+31XWdFlXreQqXMkHb5hlPvJ35s3F4IRo93/wAo1ZZUoVYR85goPyF5x+sOKn9GeCR7td3jNXWKgMybqmBQAdBq8UqZUGO4RPwxdj1rUrzRYLbr5HBMVhk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=RqwGCkXm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="RqwGCkXm" Received: (qmail 10093 invoked by uid 109); 22 Nov 2024 08:28:06 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=7AvK7v3NtLug/pQYlMvExQNdVc7duR4Op0BBmT6kOew=; b=RqwGCkXmv+acBuyxmHQGc/WBVrREkMeRo/smsSEJHJSCdic6BLk38vqb40gfTzQD2Dbmw9gv9SXUzEAGdAZLvMgCdTIlAdouHnjT9t92uQPMZ0bt3AU6viNyVMDpgXBV/GKNkATJDnfStygtvRTZnxzx6WCt2zyvc4MlQE3dA4c0nDVszUL/S6JPx0Jrw80YDJ/oqEnkHVEkxpvLa2291qlhERuqAJ0k+EsAXR5NTigopBnBJGfJGKAhAx1OuF58t3OUW2Mf4VJ4Nzy3rHiOpQHSX12mU75YE/D34T9nsWJxQpDJZznDoH4CrQK3P5Z/SnA/veX8//EgRAkxb0Xrxw== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 08:28:06 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 1729 invoked by uid 111); 22 Nov 2024 08:28:10 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:28:10 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:28:05 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH] t/perf: use 'test_file_size' in more places Message-ID: <20241122082805.GC1179306@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <50c1368630684f235548d2e9a68d4de3745b5fe6.1732220875.git.me@ttaylorr.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50c1368630684f235548d2e9a68d4de3745b5fe6.1732220875.git.me@ttaylorr.com> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 03:29:24PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > The perf test suite prefers to use test_file_size over 'wc -c' when > inside of a test_size block. One advantage is that accidentally writign > "wc -c file" (instead of "wc -c tests (since the former will include the filename in the output of wc). The use of "prefers" here confused me, because I did not think we used test_file_size at all yet. I am certainly OK with arguing that we should, but I was just confused on first read. Maybe you mean "s/perf//"? Also, s/writign/writing/. > I noticed while reviewing Stolee's --full-name-hash series that he added > new test_size tests that use the test_file_size helper instead of "wc > -c". I thought it would be good to clean up the existing uses of "wc -c" > in the perf suite as a result, which is what this patch does. Perhaps we should also touch the one in t/perf/README, which points people using test_size to using "wc -c" in the first place? -Peff