On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 05:56:08PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:46:09AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > To clarify the supported filesystems by fstests, add a fs list to > > README file. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > The v1 patch and review points: > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20250227200514.4085734-1-zlang@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > V2 did below things: > > 1) Fix some wrong english sentences > > 2) Explain the meaning of "+" and "-". > > 3) Add a link to btrfs comment. > > 4) Split ext2/3/4 to 3 lines. > > 5) Reorder the fs list by "Level". > > > > Thanks, > > Zorro > > > > README | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/README b/README > > index 024d39531..5ceaa0c1e 100644 > > --- a/README > > +++ b/README > > @@ -1,3 +1,93 @@ > > +_______________________ > > +SUPPORTED FS LIST > > +_______________________ > > + > > +History > > +------- > > + > > +Firstly, xfstests is the old name of this project, due to it was originally > > +developed for testing the XFS file system on the SGI's Irix operating system. > > +When xfs was ported to Linux, so was xfstests, now it only supports Linux. > > + > > +As xfstests has many test cases that can be run on some other filesystems, > > +we call them "generic" (and "shared", but it has been removed) cases, you > > +can find them in tests/generic/ directory. Then more and more filesystems > > +started to use xfstests, and contribute patches. Today xfstests is used > > +as a file system regression test suite for lots of Linux's major file systems. > > +So it's not "xfs"tests only, we tend to call it "fstests" now. > > + > > +Supported fs > > +------------ > > + > > +Firstly, there's not hard restriction about which filesystem can use fstests. > > +Any filesystem can give fstests a try. > > + > > +Although fstests supports many filesystems, they have different support level > > +by fstests. So mark it with 4 levels as below: > > + > > +L1: Fstests can be run on the specified fs basically. > > +L2: Rare support from the specified fs list to fix some generic test failures. > > +L3: Normal support from the specified fs list, has some own cases. > > +L4: Active support from the fs list, has lots of own cases. > > + > > +("+" means a slightly higher than the current level, but not reach to the next. > > +"-" is opposite, means a little bit lower than the current level.) > > + > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| Filesystem | Level | Comment | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| XFS | L4+ | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| Btrfs | L4 | https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dev/Development-\| > > +| | | notes.html#fstests-setup | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| Ext4 | L4 | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| Ext2 | L3 | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| Ext3 | L3 | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| overlay | L3 | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| f2fs | L3- | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| tmpfs | L3- | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| NFS | L2+ | https://linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Xfstests | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| Ceph | L2 | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| CIFS | L2- | https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Xfstesting-cifs | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| ocfs2 | L2- | N/A | > > ++------------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+ > > +| Bcachefs | L1+ | N/A | > > I heavily use xfstests and look at the test results every day - I > believe that would indicate L3. Glad to receive the response from bcachefs :) L3 means there're enough fs specific test cases in tests/$FSTYP besides generic cases, e.g. tests/overlay, or f2fs (although it only has a few currently, but it's increasing). > > bcachefs specific tests are not generally in fstests beacuse there's > lots of things that ktest can do that fstests can't, and I find it a bit > more modern (i.e. tests that names, not numbers) ktest? linux/tools/testing/ktest/ ? I'm glad to learn about more test suites, I run fstests and LTP and some others too, fstests can't cover everything :) Hmm... about the names... fstests supports to append a name to the ID number, but the developers (looks like) prefer using number only all the time, then it become a "tradition" now. > > Not all tests are passing (and won't be for awhile), but the remaining > stuff is non critical (i.e. fsync() error behaviour when the filesystem > has been shutdown, or certain device removal tests where the behaviour > could probably use some discussion. > > But if you find e.g. a configuration that produces a generic/388 pop, > that would go to the top of the pile. > > (I do have a few patches to the tests for bcachefs in my tree that I > really ought to get upstream). Sure, warm welcome your patches. And don't worry, you can send patch to update the level part anytime when you think fstests supports becachefs more :) Thanks, Zorro >
