From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl0-f42.google.com ([209.85.160.42]:38384 "EHLO mail-pl0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753199AbeDPGAM (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 02:00:12 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-f42.google.com with SMTP id c7-v6so9420306plr.5 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 23:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:00:05 +0800 From: Eryu Guan Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/444: add check for xfs_db write bno array Message-ID: <20180416060005.GJ2932@desktop> References: <1523527230-6394-1-git-send-email-xuyang.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20180412120952.GM729@dastard> <20180412130038.GE2932@desktop> <20180412230035.GB5572@dastard> <20180413043612.GF2932@desktop> <20180413134210.GD5572@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180413134210.GD5572@dastard> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: yang xu , fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:42:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:36:12PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > But this issue looks like a bug in xfsprogs to me, not a missing feature > > > > in xfsprogs on RHEL7, so I tend to fail the test instead of adding a new > > > > _require rule & _notrun the test. And in this case, IMHO, I don't think > > > > it's necessary to do any update to the test, just leave the test as it > > > > is and file a new bug in Red Hat bugzilla. > > > > > > ... this isn't a RHEL specific issue - it's an xfsprogs version > > > issue. i.e. any older distro that has a binary with a broken > > > "write array" command will fail this test. None of them are going to > > > get updated xfsprogs packages, so like having an old mkfs.xfs > > > binary, this test should run conditionally on having a version of > > > xfs_db that actually works correctly.... > > > > But I still think it's a pure bug in xfsprogs, not xfsprogs version > > issue nor a behavior change in xfsprogs, as we did support "write via > > array indexing", just that it was broken in a certain case, and commit > > 4222d000ed3b fixed that bug. We should expose bugs by letting the test > > fail, not paper over it by _notrun the test. > > Yes, it's a bug in xfsprogs. But it's a bug in a diagnostic > utility that is only used by test infrastructure and XFS > developers. OK, I got your point now, it's a bug in a diagnostic tool that is only used by XFS developers as a test infrastructure, so we can treat it as a infrastructure dependency as all other _require rules. I think that makes sense in this case. Thanks for the explanation! yang xu, would you mind sending a v2 patch as Dave suggested? Thanks! Eryu > > Yes, it's ialso fixed in recent version of xfsprogs, but you know > very well that we test distros that have ancient xfsprogs and will > never have this issue fixed in them. We use detectiona nd notrun to > avoid tests they should not run all the time, and I don't see how > this is any different. > > I really don't understand why you are pushing back on this - why > should this specific infrastructure deficiency cause test failures, > when all the existing infrastructure support checks cause tests to > notrun rather than fail? > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com