[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [parted-devel] [Parted-maintainers] Debian Bug #578097: No support f

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [parted-devel] [Parted-maintainers] Debian Bug #578097: No support for CMS-formatted disks
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:30:14 +0100

Stephen Powell wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:46:18 -0500 (EST), Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Stephen Powell wrote:
>>> How is your testing going?
>> Finding time for parted has been a challenge recently.
>>> It's unclear to me from what you wrote.  Are you asking me
>>> to provide a test case?
>> If you can, that'd be great and would accelerate the process.
>> I would no longer have an excuse not to push your patches.
>> I nearly pushed without a test case, but your changes are
>> large enough that I cannot do that in good conscience.
>> I didn't want to require you to write a test, but in the end
>> my time constraints appear to be having the same effect.
>> Sorry about that.
> Hmm.  Well, as I see it, there are two main options.  I can
> write a test script, providing you with expected output,

Thanks for persevering.

> and you can run it too, checking to see that it produces the
> same output for you.  On the plus side, you testing it
> yourself gives you the maximum assurances that it is correct.
> On the minus side, you have to be able to reproduce my
> testing environment.  For example, do you have an s390
> environment in which to test?

Yes, if an s390x will do.  On one, uname -a reports this:
Linux xxx 2.6.32-19.el6.s390x #1 SMP Tue Mar 9 19:03:48 EST 2010 s390x s390x 
s390x GNU/Linux

> Does it have both CKD and FBA DASD?
> Does it run as a guest under z/VM?  Does your
> system have the DIAG driver?  Do you have
> access to a CMS system from which you can FORMAT and/or
> RESERVE the disks in CMS format?  The answer might not be
> "yes" to all those questions, and getting such an environment
> will take time.

I don't know, for any of the above.
If you describe how to determine the answer
in a way that is easy to automate, the goal
would be to run a script that checks for required
pieces and then runs whichever tests it can.

> The other option is for me to test it for you.  On the plus
> side, that requires less time on your part.  On the minus
> side, I will need a copy of the exact source code that you
> are using (which also carries a side benefit in that I will
> get to see if my patches applied to your source as expected.)
> Another minus is that you have to take my word for it, which
> is not as reassuring to you.  Which option do you choose?
> Or do you have a third option in mind?

The best is to put into version control some script
that someone with the right equipment can run via "make check"
(probably with a couple envvars specifying things that cannot
or must not be guessed, like the name of a partition to clobber,
or a device to format).

But if it's really not feasible, I'm sure we'll find a reasonable
middle ground.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]