From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (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 97C1917579; Thu, 9 May 2024 12:54:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715259258; cv=none; b=t2Vz4LuTyj74s3kr5ZSfhiN7bnI7qSMaPzFyOI2JlTjx6szakJ+mdbLlFx5oVcPF7ZCLqY7NxwWcfWDZceFSzZdmF6BX//W4xeCkkJHorC2loFQ08f33PcOZF9CXo1oECjsu3MmsX+VOhtgM1ILIlSPmR5Xs4Z8AbKPMkO6JuME= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715259258; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Bqk+rtNpdO6EGtvjIYubK1QLxzWtDcvjN8jAUeLTt9o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WYuZTOfXP+MPDrwuOeFpbPvcx26gJXHsAbN60tQWK8ESfAiNj+79QXDTm9MApAc17/fnkpqnzXpC9kHCftBmcTy98WRRIsPPju6C7UV1ju2gPlZ11K48q0zHKjHsmPC4C05ubLrqj8u66UdJJmmuzRjyLox5ALMWfKCsUssqZh8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id A9FC268C4E; Thu, 9 May 2024 14:54:12 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 14:54:12 +0200 From: "hch@lst.de" To: Zorro Lang Cc: "hch@lst.de" , Hans Holmberg , Zorro Lang , "Darrick J. Wong" , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Damien Le Moal , Matias Bj??rling , Naohiro Aota , Johannes Thumshirn , "fstests@vger.kernel.org" , Jaegeuk Kim , "bvanassche@acm.org" , "daeho43@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic: add gc stress test Message-ID: <20240509125412.GA12191@lst.de> References: <20240416185437.GC11935@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240417124317.lje5w5hgawy4drkr@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> <20240417140648.k3drgreciyiozkbq@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> <20b38963-2994-401c-88f8-0a9d0729a101@wdc.com> <20240508085135.gwo3wiaqwhptdkju@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> <20240509054347.GA5519@lst.de> <20240509094208.ulez6lg7ymesmhej@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> 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: <20240509094208.ulez6lg7ymesmhej@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 05:42:08PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > Hmm, what kind of situation is this _expected_failure for? Well, the one we are talking about here. We have a new and useful test, and a file systems fails it because it has a bug. Personally I'd be fine with just letting it fail, but you seemed to indicate that this is a reason to not merge the test yet. > I hope we can fix the obvious case issue in reviewing phase, or deal with the > failure by 1) or 2). For this patch, I think we can find a way to avoid the > failure for btrfs, or let this test "not supported" by btrfs. Or any other > better ideas :) It is a normal use case that every file system should handle and btrfs developers are looking into it, but it might take a while.