From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Add pairing mount options test
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:26:50 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140113032650.GH3469@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52D34EBD.4020508@cn.fujitsu.com>
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:26:05AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:52:39 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 07:35:44PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>I won't say no to this, but it seems to be of somewhat limited use.
> >What happens to the test when mount options are deprecated/removed?
> >How are we going to handle the matrix of testable/untestable mount
> >options across kernels with different mount option support?
> In my opinion,there may be two ways to deal it:
> 1) Introduce up_limit_kver and down_limit_kver to *every* mount option.
> If needed also add deprecated flags.
Both of which are messy, and kernel version number checks don't work
with vendor kernels that have stuff back ported to them.
> This method will introduce more effort tomaintain the test case, but
> due to the small codes and
> relativly less changes in mount options, I consider it as an
> acceptable method.
What you are saying is that such a test will require constant
maintenance from upstream developers to keep working across all the
kernels that btrfs supports.
When combined with Eric's comments that it doesn't test the
functionality and so has relatively little benefit in terms of
improving code coverage, it doesn't paint a pretty picture. So from
that point of view, I'd say no to such a test.
> It would be quite nice if any one can provide any better idea.
Write a test for each individual feature that exercises and
validates that feature in some way. Part of a functional test would
be to test that the mount options for that function do what they are
intended to do. Eric suggested the same thing (though in a different
way).
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-13 3:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-08 6:30 [PATCH] xfstests: Add pairing mount options test Qu Wenruo
2014-01-10 16:15 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-01-13 1:21 ` Qu Wenruo
2014-01-13 1:35 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-01-13 1:52 ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-13 2:26 ` Qu Wenruo
2014-01-13 3:26 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2014-01-13 4:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2014-01-13 4:44 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-01-13 21:23 ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-13 1:55 ` Qu Wenruo
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=20140113032650.GH3469@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--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