Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] xfs: stable fixes for v4.19.y

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:48:29AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:06:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > Kernel stable team,
> > > 
> > > here is a v2 respin of my XFS stable patches for v4.19.y. The only
> > > change in this series is adding the upstream commit to the commit log,
> > > and I've now also Cc'd stable@vger.kernel.org as well. No other issues
> > > were spotted or raised with this series.
> > > 
> > > Reviews, questions, or rants are greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > Test results?
> > 
> > The set of changes look fine themselves, but as always, the proof is
> > in the testing...
> 
> I've first established a baseline for v4.19.18 with fstests using
> a series of different sections to test against. I annotated the
> failures on an expunge list and then use that expunge list to confirm
> no regressions -- no failures if we skip the failures already known for
> v4.19.18.
> 
> Each different configuration I test against I use a section for. I only
> test x86_64 for now but am starting to create a baseline for ppc64le.
> 
> The sections I use:
> 
>   * xfs
>   * xfs_nocrc
>   * xfs_nocrc_512
>   * xfs_reflink
>   * xfs_reflink_1024
>   * xfs_logdev
>   * xfs_realtimedev

Yup, that seems to cover most common things :)

> The xfs_logdev and xfs_realtimedev sections use an external log, and as
> I have noted before it seems works is needed to rule out an actual
> failure.

Yeah, there are many tests that don't work properly with external
devices, esp. RT devices. That's a less critical area to cover, but
it's still good to run it :)

Thanks, Luis!

-Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com