From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FFC863113; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:48:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709228912; cv=none; b=VWRQhAqu57St/J9augpjxrAgYEAZWVMUV60HnF3AKWfaRe1t6m8Q0PvhXhHnQtUT9ivQU6R1kCWuvPWbyENHmG5EdCUoXkojJbkO6YYyVfchoap4Mrr1KCe/rerdMJCU1dzh3sLxGXsdtfr90CIZ73lJzGLt4V7bdQw11CvDsOw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709228912; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UNiYCunT2UCAvBD2uQlgDLdoBs42SZ66NYTMKIDSauo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X7VomalT50yxku+Jh9qJJ4Lfbczyyb7ZddALdVCMdHW4AzNa7L/vrCxA67Klmv26iNSJttkQusTKd0nmb3kGJ8Lit3uAetDAVkAG5W5OlcNbvvRauyh+fRaNY/Z9584Sh1sMmq6dbmeILfKNew8kp5vFHdtTmW9n9dzeh0hXflA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=DT53xOyh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="DT53xOyh" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C517AC433F1; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:48:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1709228911; bh=UNiYCunT2UCAvBD2uQlgDLdoBs42SZ66NYTMKIDSauo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DT53xOyhc42jrzlkIUrnv67nkShugzMH/Ua5T1J24WvWuHFo0mz3pPFDl4Xg3NPKT hTyrDTi2ayKLJqjCpxymflBFEQCubbhyQsCcRUikbLBeVFzlac86TCENuMNw0D1o66 Mz1BpdPM33QoZGfr3cclVGQ5kixQLwnMj2EXYNtrrS2g72z0kGTFgNvUrOjw5G3EpZ KUiff8tHiw1nLXiKmmTLbXIV13CsPUtRutpbF3W97b/tNjnEVtNtcTOF04q6JzqgjI zC8x1GWoRczM119vIMNp0Gdq07MfdCI1ZwnvHjeMY6+7CCG+TTAV9cBVsi/cKuWl3e nTV4RlNk1Au9w== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:48:31 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: zlang@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, guan@eryu.me, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfs/122: update test to pick up rtword/suminfo ondisk unions Message-ID: <20240229174831.GB1927156@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <170899915207.896550.7285890351450610430.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <170899915304.896550.17104868811908659798.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240228012704.GU6188@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:39:29AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 05:27:04PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:54:41AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Can we please just kill the goddamn test? Just waiting for the > > > xfsprogs 6.8 resync to submit the static_asserts for libxfs that > > > will handle this much better. > > > > I'll be very happen when we scuttle xfs/122 finally. > > > > However, in theory it's still be useful for QA departments to make sure > > that xfsprogs backports (HA!) don't accidentally break things. > > > > IOWs, I advocate for _notrunning this test if xfsprogs >= 6.8 is > > detected, not removing it completely. > > > > Unless someone wants to chime in and say that actually, nobody backports > > stuff to old xfsprogs? (We don't really...) > > Well, who is going to backport changes to the on-disk format in a way > that is complex enough to change strutures, and not also backport the > patch to actually check the sizes? Sounds like a weird use case to > optimize for. It turns out that xfs/122 also captures ioctl structure sizes, and those are /not/ captured by xfs_ondisk.h. I think we should add those before we kill xfs/122. --D