From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F07D7F69 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:52:30 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DCAAC001 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:52:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qF8jlgSflqeMMsrc for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:52:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:52:20 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/18] xfstests: move tests out of top level Message-ID: <20130225215220.GG5551@dastard> References: <1343294892-20991-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <5032ABBD.80504@sgi.com> <20120820224306.GF19235@dastard> <20120821163337.GC29979@sgi.com> <20120821220926.GP19235@dastard> <20120822191642.GF29979@sgi.com> <20120822234219.GR19235@dastard> <20120823170025.GG29979@sgi.com> <512B8834.30805@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <512B8834.30805@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Ben Myers , Theodore Tso , Mark Tinguely , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 09:50:12AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 8/23/12 12:00 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:42:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> Sure, but you need to justify your arguments for keeping something > >> with evidence and logic - handwaving about wanting something is, and > >> always has been, insufficient justification. That's the part of the > >> process I'm talking about - that statements of need require > >> evidence, especially when you agreed to the removal at LSF in San > >> Fransisco a few months ago. My arguments at the time were: > >> > >> a) nobody is actually using it, > >> b) it has effectively been unmaintained since 2003 > >> c) it has no regression analysis or detection capability > >> d) it shares *very little* of xfstests > >> e) it gets in the way of cleaning up xfstests > >> f) there are far better workload generators that are being > >> actively maintained. > >> > >> And AFAIA, nothing has changed in the past few months. > > > > "In this case, SGI would like to keep the benchmark capability in xfstests in > > order have a better chance of catching performance regressions." There has > > been a been performance regression in the past few months (and there will be > > more in the future), we have had performance regressions internally too, and > > this has brought the value of having benchmarks in xfstests into sharp focus. > > "xfs has had performance regressions; xfstests contains bitrotted perf code" > > But that's not a justification for keeping bitrotted code. > > I think you finally answered the basic question Dave asked, and we learned > that SGI is not using the code which he proposes removing. > > > > > I understand that bench is bitrotted, but it still has some value even today. > > Not if nobody uses it. If it really had value it would be in use. > > > Phil has agreed to take this on as a project so the bitrot will be addressed. > > How's that been going in the 6 months since this patchset stalled? > > Can we get it moving again? Ext4 folks would like to see these changes > proceed as well. What issues remain, if any? AFAIC, none. But it will take me some time to rebase the patchsets on a current TOT as there are a bunch more tests and infrastructure changes since then, and I currently have my plate full. Eric (or anyone else), seeing as I'm not going to get back to this for a while yet, I'm happy for you to take over this patchset (and the --largefs patch set it is based on and rebase them on a current tree... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs