From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 F39F420B38; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709853890; cv=none; b=puLJGyATfgKd2PJdzkDiGJJpAM+kZZLZCwskHzH0InEUfnI3aHcTi44AAFTzogWU+tNca8X8kOWLsetJoMOzNNudK/wQQhZR9CjToS/lsZUw5P4Yx+7ETul3dgubZuQFrIYliqjpJxuWxolEqNvTDAPgzn1mZLRFWHPSKdYOeWc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709853890; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hyCQH1SrWUWG7cJmQVuoDz0pk9ny2gCu80iptk89Qb0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ToXRSc9y48fkSk6kAnqoEyRvR/LX4RJq1C8YImdYxtxD0wBnLUFLpFXNlybR4ShVpA8As/x9nRID9gAfwpmw5EtN03cFWqGYZaQKdFWMRjfBL+rVSew7qbccqWezFxms/IZ2KvqPnoke5LnyjFeIWvo1qU9qNKij8V4pecBPTjU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=BaBcSf8l; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="BaBcSf8l" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E46CC433C7; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:24:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1709853889; bh=hyCQH1SrWUWG7cJmQVuoDz0pk9ny2gCu80iptk89Qb0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BaBcSf8l15/k1JL/HwzzUj0bbieihhfCQ8X02CcdjggRmGVfMZgWvkSs8g5l7pJLM WTRJpr8eucNm5bdq37K2u/XX4S8ZaGYi3ic8Od/U+CRIgdAAHVieEux2aXv4Xe6xcx 5SdAZ4LcYtDEk7KhJzhV67ldcyFnF95QsV2yV6hk3LmiWV6q5AbTVdAhxbPWiO446X VCdzL2lDQpQe4Pfr3sN4CNAQWg/bMET3y2PrlzSBXT4cZk82mqs9oX8w0Z0H4qhGRc E6kerWQmpMbUObneMNIbsI2Lfapw+xswBID+oA6R4NQKdofU4ONFlwgomObhYaIOdu YcNtJ2tKdS5TQ== Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:24:48 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Zorro Lang Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfs/122: update test to pick up rtword/suminfo ondisk unions Message-ID: <20240307232448.GH1927156@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <170899915207.896550.7285890351450610430.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <170899915304.896550.17104868811908659798.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240228012704.GU6188@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240229174831.GB1927156@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240301131848.krj2cdt4u6ss74gz@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> <20240301175020.GI1927156@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240302045552.cq4dmvvyrkfm2fmv@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> 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: <20240302045552.cq4dmvvyrkfm2fmv@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:55:52PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 09:50:20AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 09:18:48PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:42:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:48:31AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > It turns out that xfs/122 also captures ioctl structure sizes, and those > > > > > are /not/ captured by xfs_ondisk.h. I think we should add those before > > > > > we kill xfs/122. > > > > > > > > Sure, I can look into that. > > > > > > Hi Darrick, > > > > > > Do you still want to have this patch? > > > > > > Half of this patchset got RVB. As it's a random fix patchset, we can choose > > > merging those reviewed patches at first. Or you'd like to have them together > > > in next next release? > > > > I was about to resend the second to last patch. If you decide to remove > > xfs/122 then I'll drop this one. > > xfs/122 is a xfs specific test case, it's more important for xfs list than me. > As it doesn't break the fstests testing, I respect the decision from xfs folks, > about keeping or removing it :) I think we shouldn't consider dropping this until there's an xfsprogs release with xfs_ondisk.h in the build process. Even then, my preference would be to leave a mark in xfs_db somewhere so that we keep running this test for old userspace (i.e. the mark isn't found). --D > Thanks, > Zorro > > > > > --D > > > > > Thanks, > > > Zorro > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >