From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q6VC1jAv174410 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:01:45 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 65oAm9VlGsPdXamW for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:01:32 +0200 (CEST) From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Luk=E1=A8_Czerner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Change fstrim behaviour to be consistent with upstream version In-Reply-To: <20120731023335.GA31494@infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <1343649963-14079-1-git-send-email-tracek@redhat.com> <20120730220413.GI2877@dastard> <20120731023335.GA31494@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: lczerner@redhat.com, Tomas Racek , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:33:36 -0400 > From: Christoph Hellwig > To: Dave Chinner > Cc: Tomas Racek , lczerner@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Change fstrim behaviour to be consistent with > upstream version > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:04:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > If we have duplicate code (i.e. a copy of the upstream utility) or > > the local tool can be completely replaced by the upstream tool, > > then we should use upstream and remove the local copy completely. > > Distros have been shipping fstrim for long enough now that most > > people running testing on upstream kernels will have it installed... > > > > Adding a _require_fstrim() function that checks for the upstream > > version of fstrim to be installed for each test that requires it > > would go along with this. > > I would also vote for just using the upstream util-linux fstrim. Not > quite sure what the history was here, but it might have been that the > xfstests one actually was the earlier version. Lukas, any opinions? > The local xfstests version was indeed the earlier version and it was not even in the util-linux back then. So now, when we already have fstrim in util-linux and most distributions already ship it, I do not see any reason for maintaining the local copy anymore. I agree that we should be using upstream fstrim and remove the local version completely. Thanks! -Lukas _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs