From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:49:38 -0500 Message-ID: <20141111224938.GA4112@thunk.org> References: <20141111064417.GT23575@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Milosz Tanski , Dave Chinner , LKML , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-aio@kvack.org" , Mel Gorman , Volker Lendecke , Tejun Heo , Al Viro , Linux API , Michael Kerrisk , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Moyer Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:03:14PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > I think he's referring to xfstests. Still, I think that's the wrong > place for functional testing. ltp would be better, imo. I disagree; xfstests is the right place for adding these tests, because these patches seem to require fs-specific support, and file system developers are already using xfstests when checking for regressions. Using xfstests is already part of most of the file system developers' workflow; ltp is not. So if you want to make sure we notice regressions, it really needs to go into xfstests. If you insist on putting it in ltp, then one of us will then have to make a copy of the tests and put it in xfstests. Cheers, - Ted -- 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