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 2D5677F3F for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 11:51:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B869AC00C for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 09:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id GdQskcmekTo2UkTY for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 09:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:50:49 -0500 From: Tyler Hicks Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests Message-ID: <20140514165048.GA20454@boyd> References: <53738316.20601@redhat.com> <53738597.70305@fb.com> <20140514160447.GA3974@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140514160447.GA3974@thunk.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3668249925357043773==" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: tytso@mit.edu Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Chris Mason , dchinner@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoQ==?= Czerner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org --===============3668249925357043773== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N" Content-Disposition: inline --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2014-05-14 16:04:47, tytso@mit.edu wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I > > >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to. >=20 > I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might > encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start > using it. >=20 > For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs, > and pretty quickly found problems. (I suspect the same problem exists > in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler > and less scary.) The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test > unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to > Dave once they are cleaned up a bit. Oh, that sounds interesting. I haven't seen these patches, but I expect they would be pretty easy for me to extend for testing eCryptfs. That has been on my todo list for a long time but I haven't spent much time working on eCryptfs lately. BTW, you can use this email as a supporting data point for your first paragraph. :) Tyler --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTc57oAAoJENaSAD2qAscKHiQP/jMiLT4iqu2Fovh9zqIInjpe tlw+SIdM5e9/s/mG9Gys706Ktvy/LyDAkYcBCNVePu5VlV6BTrXIlkkJwaW2F4wB zzLm02xzPzq5Z+xnWRpNcscmEz68rzA2ciFVd1PuOqw1TscTNVmfoUUAsMXXUZgv SD7M43OBHql0mTdPX65xmT2HhyYhnaL2KU1qqRvWcNT1MIuVIJ9GbkrD8sH2GzVn cM9yvgEIopbijtuLlCTxXIwzPTFZq3oVcX9awEr0Tx1tVB7qM7Bw0OK+jt/wRpDH NO0KCxGYqs7R223W1E9/pvzFs+A50n9rQihtoZEoieb6u4S/zMhmaSXTT2spOyoJ t9AkeUJLITrFyzE9V7z3KIumC9de7s1VwhYCx/CjLM+ASVPx19kCH0CnmRapiO6v zEMTabX23QV6noOI0C8CHpQ8ludLsUwbTKWpLYL6Z0qLCJeBwsVxXOlelDeKO0/6 yD998a6K9ziuJOGg4KjpGuur0QavFApt33D0c7tlRngFv/zT9pUxRSiSD0hjv2yl vKm7uz60I4OOa6b31OYZrg9S4/0vTOyr1R6PEuBd7Jp8aQ/teUOz1mC7n/nnWlew 2BY8jZZRM3AVRI/Uq+K1axMjwgNUW9Zght1Px4Bd/zszE5yONro8MX18rkTf9HNL uOmxQlf/VmP0cMFUXd+D =+lOS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N-- --===============3668249925357043773== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs --===============3668249925357043773==--