From: Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add test 257: Check proper FITRIM argument handling
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:47:27 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1317052047.2925.26.camel@doink> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1109261541500.3806@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 15:52 +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Alex Elder wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 09:14 +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
. . .
> > I think the use of "bc" to do certain math operations
> > has some value, and as such I think the right fix is
> > just to require "bc" in order for xfstests, or at least
> > for any that use the _math() function, and drop the
> > fall-back logic out of the definition of _math().
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Yes I had the same concern, but I guess I was just lazy to look at it
> :). So if we can require "bc" for xfstests we can simply remove the
> fallback. Also maybe adding helper _require_bc, or maybe even better
> adding helper _require <whatever> so we can check for <whatever> tool
> in any test.
Would you mind re-submitting the first patch (which defined
the _math() function), adding the definition of _require_math
which would be used in any script that uses the _math function?
That would fail if "bc" weren't available. It seems indirect
but I think _require_math makes more sense in the context of
whoever would be using it than _require_bc would.
And having heard nobody voice objection to the idea I think
we should just go with it.
I can take your other patch and insert the _require_math call
for you, and will verify the result works before committing it.
Thanks.
-Alex
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-26 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-23 14:15 [PATCH 1/2 v3] commit.rc: Add helper for math operation using bc Lukas Czerner
2011-09-23 14:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] Add test 257: Check proper FITRIM argument handling Lukas Czerner
2011-09-23 15:00 ` Alex Elder
2011-09-23 16:06 ` Lukas Czerner
2011-09-23 23:04 ` Michael Monnerie
2011-09-26 6:15 ` Lukas Czerner
2011-09-26 7:14 ` [PATCH] " Lukas Czerner
2011-09-26 11:42 ` Lukas Czerner
2011-09-26 12:47 ` Alex Elder
2011-09-26 13:52 ` Lukas Czerner
2011-09-26 15:47 ` Alex Elder [this message]
2011-09-23 15:00 ` [PATCH 1/2 v3] commit.rc: Add helper for math operation using bc Alex Elder
2011-09-26 18:45 ` [PATCH v4] " Lukas Czerner
2011-09-26 21:32 ` Alex Elder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1317052047.2925.26.camel@doink \
--to=aelder@sgi.com \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox