Re: [PATCH 0/6] xfstests: remove most IRIX-specific code

Re: [PATCH 0/6] xfstests: remove most IRIX-specific code

[Eryu Guan]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:29:04PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:12:35AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:36:49PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > > 
> > > For some time xfstests has de facto not supported IRIX anymore.  The
> > > final release of IRIX was over 10 years ago and it seems no one has
> > > been running the latest xfstests releases on any IRIX system, as at
> > > the very least xfstests now assumes the existence of some util-linux
> > > binaries.  There are probably other examples of this bitrot too.
> > > 
> > > Therefore, this patchset simplifies things removing IRIX support from
> > > the xfstests tests, build system, and documentation.
> > > 
> > > It focuses on making larger, more obvious cleanups.  Of course,
> > > there's more to do if people want to spend more time going through
> > > some of the more intricate details, especially XFS-specific details.
> > > But this should be a good start.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for doing this!! I didn't see patch #2 and #3 hit the list
> > (too big for the list?). Do you have a public git repo that I can pull
> > from?
> > 
> 
> Ick, I guess the size limit must be 100K.  I've pushed the series out to
> repository https://github.com/ebiggers/xfstests, branch "remove_irix_support".
> 
> Note that the two biggest patches can be more easily reviewed with
> 'git diff -D', since that abbreviates the file deletions.

Thanks!

I also cc'ed linux-xfs list for review, as IRIX support is mainly for
XFS.

Eryu

Re: [PATCH 0/6] xfstests: remove most IRIX-specific code

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 03:29:02PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:29:04PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:12:35AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:36:49PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > > > 
> > > > For some time xfstests has de facto not supported IRIX anymore.  The
> > > > final release of IRIX was over 10 years ago and it seems no one has
> > > > been running the latest xfstests releases on any IRIX system, as at
> > > > the very least xfstests now assumes the existence of some util-linux
> > > > binaries.  There are probably other examples of this bitrot too.
> > > > 
> > > > Therefore, this patchset simplifies things removing IRIX support from
> > > > the xfstests tests, build system, and documentation.
> > > > 
> > > > It focuses on making larger, more obvious cleanups.  Of course,
> > > > there's more to do if people want to spend more time going through
> > > > some of the more intricate details, especially XFS-specific details.
> > > > But this should be a good start.
> > > 
> > > Thanks a lot for doing this!! I didn't see patch #2 and #3 hit the list
> > > (too big for the list?). Do you have a public git repo that I can pull
> > > from?
> > > 
> > 
> > Ick, I guess the size limit must be 100K.  I've pushed the series out to
> > repository https://github.com/ebiggers/xfstests, branch "remove_irix_support".
> > 
> > Note that the two biggest patches can be more easily reviewed with
> > 'git diff -D', since that abbreviates the file deletions.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I also cc'ed linux-xfs list for review, as IRIX support is mainly for
> XFS.

I think it's safe to drop IRIX support; xfsprogs dropped it in 4.10.

That said, I also think "tests: remove IRIX-specific tests" removes too
many tests.  generic/097 looks like a fairly generic xattr usage test,
why not just fix it to work on Linux (and sort the attrs to stabilize
the output)?  Neither of the removed udf tests seem to test anything
Irix specific; either fix them to work with the Linux udf tools (or kill
udf/102).

I looked through the rest of the patches in the branch and they looked
ok to me.  Thanks for cleaning out that cruft.

--D

> 
> Eryu
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 0/6] xfstests: remove most IRIX-specific code

[Eric Biggers]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 08:33:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 03:29:02PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:29:04PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:12:35AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:36:49PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > For some time xfstests has de facto not supported IRIX anymore.  The
> > > > > final release of IRIX was over 10 years ago and it seems no one has
> > > > > been running the latest xfstests releases on any IRIX system, as at
> > > > > the very least xfstests now assumes the existence of some util-linux
> > > > > binaries.  There are probably other examples of this bitrot too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefore, this patchset simplifies things removing IRIX support from
> > > > > the xfstests tests, build system, and documentation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It focuses on making larger, more obvious cleanups.  Of course,
> > > > > there's more to do if people want to spend more time going through
> > > > > some of the more intricate details, especially XFS-specific details.
> > > > > But this should be a good start.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks a lot for doing this!! I didn't see patch #2 and #3 hit the list
> > > > (too big for the list?). Do you have a public git repo that I can pull
> > > > from?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ick, I guess the size limit must be 100K.  I've pushed the series out to
> > > repository https://github.com/ebiggers/xfstests, branch "remove_irix_support".
> > > 
> > > Note that the two biggest patches can be more easily reviewed with
> > > 'git diff -D', since that abbreviates the file deletions.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > I also cc'ed linux-xfs list for review, as IRIX support is mainly for
> > XFS.
> 
> I think it's safe to drop IRIX support; xfsprogs dropped it in 4.10.
> 
> That said, I also think "tests: remove IRIX-specific tests" removes too
> many tests.  generic/097 looks like a fairly generic xattr usage test,
> why not just fix it to work on Linux (and sort the attrs to stabilize
> the output)?  Neither of the removed udf tests seem to test anything
> Irix specific; either fix them to work with the Linux udf tools (or kill
> udf/102).
> 
> I looked through the rest of the patches in the branch and they looked
> ok to me.  Thanks for cleaning out that cruft.
> 
> --D
> 

Okay, thanks for the review.  When I have time I'll look into porting the
removed tests to Linux.

I also noticed there's a small bug in patch 3/6 that broke xfs/073; I'll fix
that in v2.  (Also, for easier review I'll probably use 'git format-patch -D' so
the mailing list doesn't eat the larger patches.)

Eric

Re: [PATCH 0/6] xfstests: remove most IRIX-specific code

[Eryu Guan]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 06:25:11PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 08:33:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 03:29:02PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:29:04PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:12:35AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:36:49PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For some time xfstests has de facto not supported IRIX anymore.  The
> > > > > > final release of IRIX was over 10 years ago and it seems no one has
> > > > > > been running the latest xfstests releases on any IRIX system, as at
> > > > > > the very least xfstests now assumes the existence of some util-linux
> > > > > > binaries.  There are probably other examples of this bitrot too.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Therefore, this patchset simplifies things removing IRIX support from
> > > > > > the xfstests tests, build system, and documentation.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It focuses on making larger, more obvious cleanups.  Of course,
> > > > > > there's more to do if people want to spend more time going through
> > > > > > some of the more intricate details, especially XFS-specific details.
> > > > > > But this should be a good start.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks a lot for doing this!! I didn't see patch #2 and #3 hit the list
> > > > > (too big for the list?). Do you have a public git repo that I can pull
> > > > > from?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ick, I guess the size limit must be 100K.  I've pushed the series out to
> > > > repository https://github.com/ebiggers/xfstests, branch "remove_irix_support".
> > > > 
> > > > Note that the two biggest patches can be more easily reviewed with
> > > > 'git diff -D', since that abbreviates the file deletions.
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > I also cc'ed linux-xfs list for review, as IRIX support is mainly for
> > > XFS.
> > 
> > I think it's safe to drop IRIX support; xfsprogs dropped it in 4.10.
> > 
> > That said, I also think "tests: remove IRIX-specific tests" removes too
> > many tests.  generic/097 looks like a fairly generic xattr usage test,
> > why not just fix it to work on Linux (and sort the attrs to stabilize
> > the output)?  Neither of the removed udf tests seem to test anything
> > Irix specific; either fix them to work with the Linux udf tools (or kill
> > udf/102).
> > 
> > I looked through the rest of the patches in the branch and they looked
> > ok to me.  Thanks for cleaning out that cruft.
> > 
> > --D
> > 
> 
> Okay, thanks for the review.  When I have time I'll look into porting the
> removed tests to Linux.
> 
> I also noticed there's a small bug in patch 3/6 that broke xfs/073; I'll fix

I also noticed xfs/073 failure in my testing, but haven't digged into it.

> that in v2.  (Also, for easier review I'll probably use 'git format-patch -D' so
> the mailing list doesn't eat the larger patches.)
> 
> Eric

Thanks!

Eryu

Re: [PATCH 0/6] xfstests: remove most IRIX-specific code

[Eryu Guan]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 08:33:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 03:29:02PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:29:04PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:12:35AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:36:49PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > For some time xfstests has de facto not supported IRIX anymore.  The
> > > > > final release of IRIX was over 10 years ago and it seems no one has
> > > > > been running the latest xfstests releases on any IRIX system, as at
> > > > > the very least xfstests now assumes the existence of some util-linux
> > > > > binaries.  There are probably other examples of this bitrot too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefore, this patchset simplifies things removing IRIX support from
> > > > > the xfstests tests, build system, and documentation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It focuses on making larger, more obvious cleanups.  Of course,
> > > > > there's more to do if people want to spend more time going through
> > > > > some of the more intricate details, especially XFS-specific details.
> > > > > But this should be a good start.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks a lot for doing this!! I didn't see patch #2 and #3 hit the list
> > > > (too big for the list?). Do you have a public git repo that I can pull
> > > > from?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ick, I guess the size limit must be 100K.  I've pushed the series out to
> > > repository https://github.com/ebiggers/xfstests, branch "remove_irix_support".
> > > 
> > > Note that the two biggest patches can be more easily reviewed with
> > > 'git diff -D', since that abbreviates the file deletions.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > I also cc'ed linux-xfs list for review, as IRIX support is mainly for
> > XFS.
> 
> I think it's safe to drop IRIX support; xfsprogs dropped it in 4.10.

Then all tests will have "_supported_os Linux", maybe we can drop
_supported_os() all together, and remove it from 'new' template?
Perhaps adding a os check in 'check' and exit if os is not Linux.

(xfs/109 has '_supported_os Linux XFS', but I think that's a typo).

Thanks,
Eryu

> 
> That said, I also think "tests: remove IRIX-specific tests" removes too
> many tests.  generic/097 looks like a fairly generic xattr usage test,
> why not just fix it to work on Linux (and sort the attrs to stabilize
> the output)?  Neither of the removed udf tests seem to test anything
> Irix specific; either fix them to work with the Linux udf tools (or kill
> udf/102).
> 
> I looked through the rest of the patches in the branch and they looked
> ok to me.  Thanks for cleaning out that cruft.
> 
> --D
> 
> > 
> > Eryu
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html