Re: fsx revisted

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:54 AM Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:49 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:35 AM Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> fsx (tools/regression/fsx) is very useful at finding file system bugs.
> >> I've used it to find several myself.  But it's always had one nagging
> >> problem: because it's neither installed in the base system, nor
> >> available from ports, it's difficult to use in CI pipelines.  I had
> >> some free time around New Year's, so I fixed that problem.  I could've
> >> just made a port for it, but instead I rewrote the whole thing.  The
> >> rewrite is 100% compatible with the original (except for the -s
> >> option, which I consider to be a bug), to the extent that identical
> >> seed values will produce identical command sequences.  In the future,
> >> though, I plan to add new features that will break that compatibility.
> >> For example, fspacectl operations.
> >>
> >> Check it out if you've ever used the original.  I'd appreciate any
> >> feedback, feature requests, etc.
> >>
> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=268938
> >
> >
> > I like this idea. I've not looked at the code yet, but love more tests.
> >
> > How hard would it be to integrate into ATF so we can run it as part of
> make test? ATF has the ability to skip tests when required packages aren't
> installed (which it does for python tests)...
> >
> > Warner
>
> Easy.  I had that in mind when I did this.  We could add an atf-sh
> test that creates a new ZFS file system and runs fsx on it for a fixed
> number of operations.  Likewise for tmpfs, ufs, etc.
>

Great, glad to see that's already in the planning stages.

Warner