> On 19 Dec 2018, at 08:35, Matthew Macy <mm...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:49 PM Enji Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com > <mailto:yaneurab...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello Matthew, >> >> I appreciate the long write up, as someone who still uses FreeBSD ZFS on my >> NAS box and knowing some of the history with ZFS on *Solaris, etc. Something >> like this was bound to happen with post the Oracle buyout. >> >>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 10:49 PM, Matthew Macy <mm...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> The sources for FreeBSD's ZFS support are currently taken directly >>> from Illumos with local ifdefs to support the peculiarities of FreeBSD >>> where the Solaris Portability Layer (SPL) shims fall short. FreeBSD >>> has regularly pulled changes from Illumos and tried to push back any >>> bug fixes and new features done in the context of FreeBSD. In the past >>> few years the vast majority of new development in ZFS has taken place >>> in DelphixOS and zfsonlinux (ZoL). Earlier this year Delphix announced >>> that they will be moving to ZoL >>> https://www.delphix.com/blog/kickoff-future-eko-2018 This shift means >>> that there will be little to no net new development of Illumos. While >>> working through the git history of ZoL I have also discovered that >>> many races and locking bugs have been fixed in ZoL and never made it >>> back to Illumos and thus FreeBSD. This state of affairs has led to a >>> general agreement among the stakeholders that I have spoken to that it >>> makes sense to rebase FreeBSD's ZFS on ZoL. Brian Behlendorf >>> has graciously encouraged me to add FreeBSD support directly to ZoL >>> https://github.com/zfsonfreebsd/ZoF so that we might all have a single >>> shared code base. >>> >>> A port for ZoF can be found at https://github.com/miwi-fbsd/zof-port >>> Before it can be committed some additional functionality needs to be >>> added to the FreeBSD opencrypto framework. These can be found at >>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D18520 >>> >>> This port will provide FreeBSD users with multi modifier protection, >>> project quotas, encrypted datasets, allocation classes, vectorized >>> raidz, vectorized checksums, and various command line improvements. >>> >>> Before ZoF can be merged back in to ZoL several steps need to be taken: >>> - Integrate FreeBSD support into ZoL CI >>> - Have most of the ZFS test suite passing >>> - Complete additional QA testing at iX >> >> Can you please describe the testing process that will be employed to verify >> the sanity of the ZoL on FreeBSD port? Should other large companies who use >> ZFS on FreeBSD (Panzura?) chime in and the ZFS on FreeBSD community (as a >> whole) collaborate to better suss out issues with the ZoL port? > > The ZFS test suite itself provides ~80% coverage > https://codecov.io/gh/zfsonlinux/zfs/branch/master > <https://codecov.io/gh/zfsonlinux/zfs/branch/master> - FreeBSD currently > lacks equivalent gcov support, but presumably it would provide > comparable coverage here. Andrew Turner has some form of kernel gcov > support that he uses with syzkaller. However, I believe that it isn't > sufficient for this purpose.
The code I have is to trace the kernel part of a single thread, e.g. what happens in the kernel when you make a system call. It can trace function either function entry or places in the code with a conditional statement, e.g. an if, while, or switch statement. If this is enough for your case a tool could be written to track coverage from the tests. I expect to update the review soon. I’m working on a man page, but have been too busy with work and other projects recently to finish writing it. Andrew _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
