From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 419F9218AB4 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:41:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740580876; cv=none; b=HouaOG2JZ+dhd+BBgSxLXt9Xec5k72XBLaBf9mvqTLxOSxuHry0JnOsYOSxA1ZKk7nLH7qT/TzUDqTF6G1Nc1y+uU8AxjBbI7NBMgwC3eky8P7/zOoRkR97otefHTLixd9BJvv0gCLqpKGBA0QFCehcTuXo0WF1AQVoSDF7v4BA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740580876; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ay0u/XXcDCvLRQei7dNjtfMDxY+UcImMbvJUVIiDBCU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mNVa91l0T3h6ZrIxLcGsXBp28f3BiBYT4K+qF/T5Ph5gZKa9F1TrM0FFE+D+NjHO38cgrC7XBd3owy5nANQY2TmKVM7iXX08CWLeI+JIaU5TAm2cUty9l9fFsoOWjDkgfrWk3a4zN44BRHINW3viYCHY/bdoDKa/KeehphqlwYk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=X6kizwMk; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=w4YEm8dH; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=X6kizwMk; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=w4YEm8dH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="X6kizwMk"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="w4YEm8dH"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="X6kizwMk"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="w4YEm8dH" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B2DA1F387; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:41:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1740580873; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SPzzTMd0g67/GZBaBmX/Lo8nG+z6Mp1KTlQ7wqbqLjs=; b=X6kizwMk0MenUewSuNSuHK7xgMUA9YLHWGTd+n72Ydcnv8bVzUq5BSTaGk1CAYGR3bZkn9 207PM6FJVMnypHHNyayv85Gig2LthPDbW8rYGF8iaGoLtX/xVk0UBBw24iZHF0Xf6XU+Gs RLSEvVsfAINVnpn9nNUIFoktBYEXV9g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1740580873; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SPzzTMd0g67/GZBaBmX/Lo8nG+z6Mp1KTlQ7wqbqLjs=; b=w4YEm8dHhKNJgp2AYVT4X283RD6H5WxQtsKuLDLVI5hC4MMSRt7WmZ6cNGKF7qiQ1+PL8F jBW2CdLZfoW598CQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=X6kizwMk; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=w4YEm8dH DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1740580873; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SPzzTMd0g67/GZBaBmX/Lo8nG+z6Mp1KTlQ7wqbqLjs=; b=X6kizwMk0MenUewSuNSuHK7xgMUA9YLHWGTd+n72Ydcnv8bVzUq5BSTaGk1CAYGR3bZkn9 207PM6FJVMnypHHNyayv85Gig2LthPDbW8rYGF8iaGoLtX/xVk0UBBw24iZHF0Xf6XU+Gs RLSEvVsfAINVnpn9nNUIFoktBYEXV9g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1740580873; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SPzzTMd0g67/GZBaBmX/Lo8nG+z6Mp1KTlQ7wqbqLjs=; b=w4YEm8dHhKNJgp2AYVT4X283RD6H5WxQtsKuLDLVI5hC4MMSRt7WmZ6cNGKF7qiQ1+PL8F jBW2CdLZfoW598CQ== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C12A1377F; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:41:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id PcmiBgkov2cuSQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:41:13 +0000 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:41:07 +0100 From: David Sterba To: Zorro Lang Cc: Zorro Lang , David Sterba , fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fstests: remove reiserfs support Message-ID: <20250226144107.GU5777@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <20250219221743.20161-1-dsterba@suse.com> <20250220202238.6axqgejzk47aay3j@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> <20250220203751.GH5777@suse.cz> <20250221051902.e7ft6iuvahfvvyza@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> <20250221105918.GJ5777@twin.jikos.cz> <20250221154531.ttch34qic7zsxyzv@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: <20250221154531.ttch34qic7zsxyzv@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3B2DA1F387 X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.21 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[dsterba@suse.cz]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RBL_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; SPAMHAUS_XBL(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_DOM_NEQ_TO_DOM(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167:received]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:replyto,suse.cz:mid,suse.cz:dkim] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Level: On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 11:45:31PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > This may bring the question what is the policy for filesystem support. > > I've seen "case $FSTYP" with widely inconsistent cases of filesystems, > > probably the longest list is in common/rc:_require_scratch_nocheck with > > 9p, virtiofs, afs, pvfs2 or ubifs. It would be good to document that in > > README, I haven't found anything in that regard. > > Good idea, maybe we should have a list about that. > > There's not a limitation about what filesystems are supported or not. > Especially the generic test cases, some "not in list" filesystems might > run generic tests too. So we don't exclude any filesystem which wants > to try fstests. > > Generally when someone wants to help fstests to support a new filesystem, > there're 3 phases: > 1) Check if fstests can mkfs, mount, unmount and fsck on this fs natively. > If it can't, add the fs to the "case...esac" list, to do special treatment. > 2) Run generic test case on the new fs, fix some test failures which are > not suitable for this fs. > 3) Add more test cases for this fs, might need a new tests/$FSTYP directory > and more common helpers. > > Actually some of filesystems which are "supported" by xfstests, just satisfy > the phase#1, or a few phase#2. That depends on how deeply that fs list > would like to use xfstests. > > But everything is still changing. For example, we don't support nfs much, > just in phase#1. But as more and more nfs folks start to use xfstests, > it's good to run on nfs now, even reach to part of phase#3. In contrast, > although cifs is in the list, and xfstests can be run on it, but too > many test failures, no one from cifs would like to care about that. > > So about the "support list", what's the standard to count in a fs :) Thanks, this is useful, can you please add this text to the README?