Re: [PATCH v3] overlay/016: split into two tests

[Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:51:04PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 7:38 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > overlay/016 tests two cases of ro/rw fd data inconsistecies -
> > one using pread and one using mmap read (i.e. mread).
> >
> > The first case now passes with stacked overlay file operations
> > patch set merged. The second case will still fail.
> >
> > By splitting the two test cases we get one regression test for
> > the common case of ro/rw fd data inconsistecy with pread and
> > one test to track the remaining non-standard behavior of
> > overlayfs w.r.t mmap.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Eryu,
> >
> > The overlayfs ro/rw fd data inconsistecies patches were
> > finally merged, so we can now merge this test change to
> > reflect new behavior.
> >
> > After this change on current master:
> > - overlay/16 is expected to pass
> > - overlay/61 is expected to fail
> >
> > FYI, overlay/60 (new metacopy feature test) is also expected to
> > run and pass on master.
> >
> 
> Eryu,
> 
> More FYI from testing overlayfs over ext4/xfs on master:
> - With base fs xfs, swap group tests crash the kernel - sent out a fix
> - With base fs xfs, overlay/019 stress test hits lockdep "circular dependency"
>   and "downgrading a read lock" warnings - it seems like a 4.18-rc1 regression
>   I will need more time to investigate
> - With base fs ext4, the 6 tests that do "_test_generic_punch -d" fail -
>   all expect for generic/009 are regressions from this cycle
> 
> The above generic tests failures are the only failures I observed with
> "check -overlay -g quick" apart from test that also fail on base fs
> (e.g. generic/484).

Thanks a lot for the detailed information!

Eryu