On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 06:03:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 08:49:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 05:10:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

The user-space FUSE thing does indeed work reasonably well.

It performs horribly badly if you care about things like that, though.

In fact, your own numbers kind of show that:

  ntfs/default: 670 tests, 55 failures, 211 skipped, 34783 seconds
  ntfs3/default: 664 tests, 67 failures, 206 skipped, 8106 seconds

and that's kind of the point of ntfs3.

Sure, although if you run fstress in parallel ntfs3 will lock up, the
system hard, and it has at least one lockdep deadlock complaints.
It's not up to me, but personally, I'd feel better if *someone* at
Paragon Software responded to Darrrick and my queries about their
quality assurance, and/or made commitments that they would at least
*try* to fix the problems that about 5 minutes of testing using
fstests turned up trivially.

<cough> Yes, my aim was to gauge their interest in actively QAing the
driver's current problems so that it doesn't become one of the shabby
Linux filesystem drivers, like <cough>ntfs.

Note I didn't even ask for a particular percentage of passing tests,
because I already know that non-Unix filesystems fail the tests that
look for the more Unix-specific behaviors.

I really only wanted them to tell /us/ what the baseline is.  IMHO the
silence from them is a lot more telling.  Both generic/013 and
generic/475 are basic "try to create files and read and write data to
them" exercisers; failing those is a red flag.

Konstantin has wrote about these thing see below.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 10:20:26 +0000, Konstantin Komarov wrote: 

xfstests are being one of our standard test suites among others.
Currently we have the 'generic/339' and 'generic/013' test cases
failing, working on it now. Other tests either pass or being skipped
(due to missing features e.g. reflink). 

Source:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/7538540ab82e4b398a0203564a1f1b23@paragon-software.com/ (local)

Also code tells that xfstests is being used in Paragon. In ntfs3/file.c:

/*
* Unwritten area
* NTFS is not able to store several unwritten areas
* Activate 'ntfs_sparse_cluster' to zero new allocated clusters
*
* Dangerous in case:
* 1G of sparsed clusters + 1 cluster of data =>
* valid_size == 1G + 1 cluster
* fallocate(1G) will zero 1G and this can be very long
* xfstest 016/086 will fail without 'ntfs_sparse_cluster'
*/
/*ntfs_sparse_cluster(inode, NULL, vcn,
 *	              min(vcn_v - vcn, clen));
 */

I'm just bringing this thing up because so many has asked and Konstantin
has not responded recently. Hopefully he will soon. Of course is it
little bit worrying that example generic/013 still fails after almoust
year has passed and Konstantin said he is working on it. And it seems that
more tests fails than beginning of review process.

--D

quoted

I can even give them patches and configsto make it trivially easy for
them to run fstests using KVM or GCE....

				- Ted