From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:42:40 +1100 Message-ID: <20141111214240.GV23575@dastard> References: <20141111064417.GT23575@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org To: Jeff Moyer Cc: Milosz Tanski , LKML , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-aio@kvack.org" , Mel Gorman , Volker Lendecke , Tejun Heo , Theodore Ts'o , Al Viro , Linux API , Michael Kerrisk , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:03:14PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Milosz Tanski writes: > > >> Can you write a test (or set of) for fstests that exercises this new > >> functionality? I'm not worried about performance, just > >> correctness.... > > > > Sure thing. Can you point me at the fstests repo? A quick google > > search reveals lots of projects named fstests, most of them abandoned. > > I think he's referring to xfstests. Still, I think that's the wrong > place for functional testing. ltp would be better, imo. I don't follow. Can you explain why is xfstests be the wrong place to exercise this functionality and what makes ltp a better choice? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org