From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:54700 "EHLO aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727266AbeJUW2H (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:28:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs/154: test for device dynamic rescan References: <20171113022541.7413-1-anand.jain@oracle.com> From: Anand Jain Message-ID: <184cb50c-1504-039b-6792-b5a710296ded@oracle.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:13:03 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: fdmanana@gmail.com, Nikolay Borisov Cc: fstests , linux-btrfs List-ID: On 10/21/2018 05:31 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:20 AM Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> >> On 21.10.2018 10:16, Filipe Manana wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 2:26 AM Anand Jain wrote: >>>> >>>> Make sure missing device is included in the alloc list when it is >>>> scanned on a mounted FS. >>>> >>>> This test case needs btrfs kernel patch which is in the ML >>>> [PATCH] btrfs: handle dynamically reappearing missing device >>>> Without the kernel patch, the test will run, but reports as >>>> failed, as the device scanned won't appear in the alloc_list. >>> >>> So that patch was never merged, at least not with that subject. >>> What happened? The contending patch at V5 (with fixed comments as received) was working fine at the then latest kernel version, now its out dated, and I am not sure where to invest my time, it will be better to have David's comment, if he has any concern on the idea/approach in general. I am ok to revive the patch. >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/tree/tests/btrfs/154 >> >> In my testing of misc-next this test has been failing for me. Don't bother about that patch I am sure its not good on the current kernel. > recent hole punch > test, that doesn't have a corresponding kernel fix. Hole punching kernel patch, fixes a corner case, I tried but failed. Until my current priority list recedes I won't be able to look into it again. If you would like to pick this up pls go ahead. I think it will easy for you. Lastly, I think its a good idea to record the current known limitation as a test cases, even if it fails, in that way it gets documented. Thanks, Anand