public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Eli Schwartz <[email protected]>,
	Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
	Ammar Faizi <[email protected]>
Cc: io-uring Mailing List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 3/3] test range file alloc
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:03:21 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 6/30/22 1:26 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 6/30/22 11:18 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 6/30/22 15:31, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>>> On 6/30/22 9:19 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Nobody cared enough to "fix" all tests to use those new codes, most
>>>> of the cases just return what they've got, but whatever. Same with
>>>> stdout vs stderr.
>>>
>>> That error code rule was invented since commit:
>>>
>>>     68103b731c34a9f83c181cb33eb424f46f3dcb94 ("Merge branch
>>> 'exitcode-protocol' of ....")
>>>
>>>     Ref: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/pull/621/files
>>>
>>> Thanks to Eli who did it. Eli also fixed all tests. Maybe some are still
>>> missing, but if we find it, better to fix it.
>>
>> Have no idea what you're talking about but I'm having
>> hard time calling 6 returns out of 21 in this file "all".
> 
> 
> Hi, I should probably clarify the state of affairs...
> 
> I submitted a patch series on github 4 days ago which implements those
> new codes. It was merged 2 days ago. This is very new code, so I think
> it's not completely 100% fair to say that no one "cared" enough to use it.
> 
> As far as the actual changes and their completion go... take a look at
> the commit messages in the merged patches, specifically take a look at
> commit ed430fbeb33367324a039d9cee0fd504bb91e11a.
> 
> """
> tests: migrate some tests to use enum-based exit codes
> 
> [...]
> 
> A partial migration of existing pass/fail values in test sources is
> included.
> """
> 
> You can also take a look at Github's equivalent of a cover letter, in
> which I mentioned that I haven't ported everything, but what I did do is
> still useful because "a) it has to start somewhere, b) it demonstrates
> the basic idea of how to structure things."
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, I believe the patch series stands on its own
> merit. I established the framework to use, and that on its own is useful
> and deserves merging, because it means that people can start using it,
> and getting things correct from the beginning when adding new code.
> 
> Old code does need to be carefully checked, it's not a simple
> find/replace, but that can be done incrementally, and I'm willing to
> continue work on that myself. I just don't think it has to be all or
> nothing at the time of merging.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Also, for the record -- while waiting for the Github patch series to be
> merged, I did continue to convert more code via git commit --fixup= &&
> git rebase -i --autosquash. If it had taken longer to end up being
> merged, I would have ended up converting more tests over, and that would
> have reflected on the current state of git master.
> 
> I'm not sad that it got merged when it was, because again, this work can
> be done incrementally and people can take advantage of existing work
> immediately. Jens decided it was ready to merge, and that seems like a
> fine decision to me. If he had asked me to finish porting all the tests
> first, I could have done that too.

And that was why I merged it, too. I think it's a step in the right
direction, and as long as you keep converting tests so we end up in a
cohesive state, then that's all good. I just did a liburing release and
it'll be at least few months before the next one, now is a good time to
shake up things like this.

Thanks for your work so far, looking forward to the next batch!

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-30 20:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-30  9:13 [PATCH for-next 0/3] ranged file slot alloc Pavel Begunkov
2022-06-30  9:13 ` [PATCH for-next 1/3] update io_uring.h with file slot alloc ranges Pavel Begunkov
2022-06-30  9:13 ` [PATCH for-next 2/3] alloc range helpers Pavel Begunkov
2022-06-30 13:08   ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-30  9:13 ` [PATCH for-next 3/3] test range file alloc Pavel Begunkov
2022-06-30 13:09   ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-30 13:32     ` Ammar Faizi
2022-06-30 14:19     ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-06-30 14:31       ` Ammar Faizi
2022-06-30 15:18         ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-06-30 19:26           ` Eli Schwartz
2022-06-30 20:03             ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2022-06-30 14:57       ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-30  9:18 ` [PATCH for-next 0/3] ranged file slot alloc Pavel Begunkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox