From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:43106 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750700AbcI2D5E (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2016 23:57:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 23:56:36 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Re: [PATCH] common: add support for the "local" file system type Message-ID: <20160929035636.g2776ggv2cundlrh@thunk.org> References: <20160923200526.29674-1-tytso@mit.edu> <20160926221814.GC2532@dastard> <20160928235713.tt76og3lxuvozrpi@thunk.org> <20160929021628.GI9806@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160929021628.GI9806@dastard> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:16:29PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > So, sooper-s3kr3t internal google stuff that you can't talk about > and may never see the light of day. When it is announced and > released, then let's talk about integration.... Fair enough, I'll carry it as an out-of-tree patch at https://github.com/tytso/xfstests ... for anyone else who might find it useful for their purposes. > xfstests is not designed for validating system call API compliance - > it's for exercising /filesystem implementations/. xfstests assumes > the syscall API is valid and working, and tries to break the > underlying storage implementation. As such, your example really > isn't something you should be using xfstests for - it doesn't test > anything like what is needed to verify that the "VFS emulation" is > valid and complete and working exactly as documented in the linux > man pages. Who says there isn't an underlying file system implementation which we want to test? In fact we *are* using the right tool for the job. (I'm quite aware of the other testing tools that might be available including LTP and others, such as the LSB tests.) Cheers, - Ted