From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 C4DA3DF6C; Sun, 19 Jul 2026 19:15:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784488554; cv=none; b=BDQ0bTqeTiJ/bG5b975ObsGQeoc1PuUSe+g8DNt0KimOp3BwKRvv0Vq7JzvIysxs/SGHzWzpzXt/PvAhGDfrlK/7yFaQ111EdFKRgx6UrJNfk0/mseRSDqLB9Ig9xbBl6qutd7CQ+34vRgWLhRup9NLXSAV9rJrE1+nyke7ytKQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784488554; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CoeblyX7URmqo2OgT2fyxEf0BplPJTbaw+9JtRpn3h8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EAAXfshiip6IS8J/abs7uCXRDjQ+DYV/2XGQn4VFasOEqRoUbVSI3+ThdKS2S9BuVPr4EDDfrNySKySA38FI+VAIgGjiMHcRmVB3cnctDOWAhGiNeAuUjr++/5HqQ6XjByTWs1xsQoMbT7An6HKN+FabIQjThYeYEAhvn0ep2JQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=IHqmOTZK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="IHqmOTZK" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D65421F000E9; Sun, 19 Jul 2026 19:15:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784488553; bh=y5GE3u+pzknKTvUUnbMKdfnhSgkeSIQwUggIhUAsMLE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=IHqmOTZKzKUEYbFbV/qQSi6u57Ruek0qbzy7mqFSqiBGzcFw+1xOxx6tvEYWxprNI HBWWca+kk2vxG6LcTj5fn6LIqRrCkjJ98EjOZZOjrMWWOxXuEO1L2jH//njbKOpj8h d7fAexu30aaXdgegQaAz/yX7OuNXDuiryFdbUILPIl8xgTLZGLAkf2stkyeMcWb4ym uN6iOoyy7sDOrmuSyG6R4my5Xvb0vlqV9VE9yI7ADK/ycdphOvwBTI0JpoMf5YhTi+ ahGjUbsvlFszmc8f8eKewwdPU5XRyzCDMiNQJMGP/whnFfkG0rf/KmwFqFhZROWBfU EcXDbWl5oKcHA== Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 03:15:47 +0800 From: Zorro Lang To: Theodore Tso Cc: Viacheslav Dubeyko , "fstests@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "slava@dubeyko.com" Subject: Re: Should we consider disable generic/563 for file systems that do not support cgroup2? Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Viacheslav Dubeyko , "fstests@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "slava@dubeyko.com" References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@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 Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 12:52:50PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 11:57:04PM -0500, Zorro Lang wrote: > > Thank you for your reply. You are right. I was just listing some > > possible options, and I did not mean we must change the kernel for > > testing. Changing the kernel just for a _notrun is indeed not worth > > it. If there is no simple way to implement the _require_* function, > > we can `_exclude_fs hfs` directly :) > > I wouldn't necessarily rule out changing the kernel so that file > systems can declare whether they can support cgroupv2. The advantage > is that we wouldn't need to keep adding "_exclude_fs xxx" each time we > try to make fstets work on the simpler file systems. It also means > that if a file system adds support for cgroupv2, we wouldn't need to > change fstests --- also, if the patch gets backported to an older > kernel (either an LTS or an enterprise distro kernel) we don't need to > try to modulate the _exclude_fs using kernel version numbers (which > isn't guaranteed to work given the backporting possibility). Sure, hardcoding a _notrun based on FSTYP is a last resort, and it would definitely be better if we had a more elegant way to trigger the _notrun. As a test suite, I cannot enforce or dictate what features a specific filesystem must export just for the convenience of testing :) > > This is a philosophical issue, and reasonable people could disagree on > this approach. For my part, I created /sys/fs/ext4/features/* > precisely so that userspace (and fstests) so we can test if a > particular feature is available on a particular kernel. Otherwise, a > test to see whether a particular feature "works" might have a false > positive if the feature is broken, and the way we test whether the > feature is present is basically what was accidentally broken with by a > regression. /sys/fs/$FSTYP/features/ is indeed incredibly helpful! Just a couple of days ago, I was actually discussing expanding _require_fs_sysfs to support features/ checks there, since our current checks are limited to the /sys/fs/$FSTYP/$device/ directory: https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/aloCfjjqesxpzL9z@zlang-mailbox/T/#mc5a0492cc00550467256951042828bef5d7fa38d Thanks, Zorro > > Cheers, > > - Ted >