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 486212C3245; Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:57:11 +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=1784476632; cv=none; b=VYoU5ApeNsQSpMBEeYqAHc2TRq99REJXx3W+JvTh1sGRMAxRsrMkpUUdhQZuYmJbPF7nbCSpYFmIozMdnqjlDU4ANb1SJQ2hJocgrL+obbwxQcjddP5GcNHP38gM3Lz3a0yx2UX59VEIWiDQEcScCnXurW939KSJ6qqPAlzFBvY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784476632; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KfCinnlrdCWPlf03D00+fC9wNIqXXrnk1zB5uv2L0zg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RNgyq5ff4bu/lUh120sGAztyVm0Jy1xoYjP7M1FoGstsoQoQgFPbt8rKce7D0MGBJzZylGLmmotqOCyJxAM+xXuDakyj+Y/VoSpP8dvvDKx+Mx4hpg6kA+Kl8QhmcHwu7bV3of84pEVnho/A22b3FGBnAE3rI99Eujm5sKLVQHc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=apXTj4gv; 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="apXTj4gv" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73D1C1F000E9; Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:57:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784476630; bh=jMN3LPNkhWo8HhkBYCl/0vtiBzQdc6t0rRMOnTS9YwA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=apXTj4gvZjfosneHSr5HRNYPRVRPzFM8NDFvHPHe5ZPdmPsaEbo+rvJ7doxj1p+HC 7LPhX94ccWzzzh7Rwe/SWLwvwK5dSFBoBaJbcVKWFpg+dQiwpeYwh5Cqj0unkPtlSo 9QuXxClgRH3fEs1rCuP2mK0OkesPvjhydJafv6skgeMnXawruIz/TWUP0frCCjSd8j mJHVxkHwReQ1N/pW3X6TH2wtpkuM85g2eUT04HyTLgk0OTnCMqTLxFHGjJEXT1ECbX Fre/oLi2yHzBeoXcsc9hC1MGy5uVY/g7JVd+LopeZklVO+Lxgc52ZylHeC5wP0FnbS ZE2Od9YA/T92w== Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:57:04 +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: 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 Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 10:02:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 12:19:52AM -0500, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > 3. You can use or implement a _require_ function to check if a specific feature > > is supported, which will gracefully _notrun the test if it's missing. While > > _require_cgroup2() already exists, its granularity is currently too coarse to > > _notrun for HFS. You might want to consider refining it or introducing a new > > helper to help file systems like HFS+ _notrun properly. > > It may be rather challenging to determine whether the file system is > supposed to support cgroupv2, unless we want to define a VFS specific > flag and a way to query it via sysfs. If we want to encourage the use > of the simpler file systems to use xfstests, we may want to consider > that approach. Hi Ted, 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 :) Thanks, Zorro > > - Ted >