From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:00:07 +0200
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH ltp 2/5] runtest: rename gf*** and rwtest{1..5} in
 lvm.part{1, 2} and scsi_debug.part1
In-Reply-To: <20190809141354.GF32115@rei.lan>
References: <20190809062000.8671-1-yixin.zhang@intel.com>
 <20190809062000.8671-2-yixin.zhang@intel.com>
 <20190809141354.GF32115@rei.lan>
Message-ID: <20190902090007.GA21733@dell5510>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hi,

> Hi!
> > There are lots tests with duplicated name gf*** and rwtest0{1..5} in the
> > 3 runtest file but they are testing different fs. Rename them to
> > distingulish.

> > 1. Change gf*** to gf***_lvm/gf***_scsi
> > 2. Chagne rwtest** to rwtest{1..8}**_lvm/rwtest{1..8}**_scsi, which the
> >    code 1..8 is the code for the target filesystem

> I'm undecided on this one. On one hand I do not think that maintaining
> unique names across different runtest files is feasible.
+1
> On the other
> hand this case is probably fine since it's unlikely that we will change
> these files frequently.

> Does anybody have strong opinion on this?
Not really. At least adding "_lvm" is quite descriptive (unlike AD00{1..9} =>
ADA00{1..9} in 3/5 patch).

Kind regards,
Petr