Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?

Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?

[Allison Henderson]

Hi all!

During one of my reviews for the punch hole tests patch set it was 
mentioned that it would be helpful to take the xfstests 145, 161, 175, 
176, 185 and modify them such that they can run with out requiring the 
dmapi.  These tests contain some more interesting punch hole tests, but 
they dont normally run unless there is support for dmapi.

I did take a peek at them and I was thinking that if we decide to do 
this, we would probably need to do something like introduce a new set of 
source code that is similar to what is seen under the dmapi folder, but 
modified to use a generic interface instead of the dmapi libraries.  We 
could try to merge them into a single code path, but I think that may 
introduce more complexities than would be desirable.

I just wanted to get a general consensus of how many people would be 
interested in this idea.  Thx all!

Allison Henderson

Re: Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:48:58AM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> During one of my reviews for the punch hole tests patch set it was
> mentioned that it would be helpful to take the xfstests 145, 161,
> 175, 176, 185 and modify them such that they can run with out
> requiring the dmapi.  These tests contain some more interesting
> punch hole tests, but they dont normally run unless there is support
> for dmapi.
> 
> I did take a peek at them and I was thinking that if we decide to do
> this, we would probably need to do something like introduce a new
> set of source code that is similar to what is seen under the dmapi
> folder, but modified to use a generic interface instead of the dmapi
> libraries.  We could try to merge them into a single code path, but
> I think that may introduce more complexities than would be
> desirable.

Most of it should be doable using xfs_io.  If it's nessecary to write
new source files because of e.g. concurrency tests that we can't easily
do from xfs_io please add new source files to the src/ directory.

Also, please don't rewrite the actual existing dmapi test cases, but
add new ones testing these patterns using the fallocate interface, as
the coverage for the dmapi interface still is useful.

Re: Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?

[Allison Henderson]

On 06/09/2011 04:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:48:58AM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
>> During one of my reviews for the punch hole tests patch set it was
>> mentioned that it would be helpful to take the xfstests 145, 161,
>> 175, 176, 185 and modify them such that they can run with out
>> requiring the dmapi.  These tests contain some more interesting
>> punch hole tests, but they dont normally run unless there is support
>> for dmapi.
>>
>> I did take a peek at them and I was thinking that if we decide to do
>> this, we would probably need to do something like introduce a new
>> set of source code that is similar to what is seen under the dmapi
>> folder, but modified to use a generic interface instead of the dmapi
>> libraries.  We could try to merge them into a single code path, but
>> I think that may introduce more complexities than would be
>> desirable.
>
> Most of it should be doable using xfs_io.  If it's nessecary to write
> new source files because of e.g. concurrency tests that we can't easily
> do from xfs_io please add new source files to the src/ directory.
>
> Also, please don't rewrite the actual existing dmapi test cases, but
> add new ones testing these patterns using the fallocate interface, as
> the coverage for the dmapi interface still is useful.
>

Alrighty, thx Christoph.  I will keep this work item on my todo list then.