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 32A4816D9B0; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:05:22 +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=1712761523; cv=none; b=JHTLmumjQqxNgDZbyPTqRBPferJ+ydWNg4egXrCcqLHGRyZxHTViPvn+ViAahPdiGBmFI5jAyFfwNoef2i5PKPPAASGLFc3LvMI/JFdffL+0ZghSm0jO9o8H3qzWGJ52UXaGMqH0jDDPofDszzNKS07N7uQMzFpZBvuhq84193w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712761523; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tjuI6dO27kRilxRkFeKZsSI4SFgbM+T4R+64oul27Fg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=eCHHGeFquUA0s5Z6ZiEWzam9BTVYQwMla3iCpkR/miKAHIx4+z43YwheYQrvMjvnKBpPbiBpceHvj5B0K1yIu1vLFCWTeUNbVs06D+izsYKhNYGqHKThn1XwmoiF0U9a8TUa0jU1bMO5l/DdN/LdMihocdQmBmWG2r8/e1rsME4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=t9TMaVXQ; 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="t9TMaVXQ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9ECF3C433F1; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:05:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1712761522; bh=tjuI6dO27kRilxRkFeKZsSI4SFgbM+T4R+64oul27Fg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=t9TMaVXQd7kd+YJHRsDhBHFSqgbBh5Ym3G2tnEMSZOdCa0LWbyG5otWJU5Kv2nm7R QzfeXLLivFVYlg9GNO3amacV5uumUL7Pc9/AWY4UFVO5e1mmUY8u8NMsVO492x1Suj RaxQZd3RUDB2S1yiTl0yInhRSHNNzsT38RzGJTqqNG11ouEFDWrHndEdAyIo/6ZNcf qU+aSKMW1P49DBKXQGZ6jBwHpF+2Ver8BwdLsf81mhY6yecqIaF3dPL4ZARJYKvSF4 fHQ2LQFc5ahsTHmtZagHOVDH+RdqZFuhrGUGhfIf0Rgibg3+Jf61jUH8DxWbXi9M3G n33WwXc7tzGbg== Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:05:21 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Eric Sandeen , Zorro Lang , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] xfs: don't run tests that require v4 file systems when not supported Message-ID: <20240410150521.GU6390@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20240408133243.694134-1-hch@lst.de> <20240408133243.694134-7-hch@lst.de> <20240409155612.GF634366@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240410041402.GB2208@lst.de> 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: <20240410041402.GB2208@lst.de> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:14:02AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 08:56:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > --- > > > common/xfs | 10 ++++++++++ > > > tests/xfs/002 | 1 + > > > > Looks fine to me. > > > > > tests/xfs/045 | 1 + > > > > xfs_db can change uuids on v5 filesystems now, so we don't nee the > > -mcrc=0 in this test. > > Ok, I'll look into that. > > > Looks fine to me. > > > > > tests/xfs/148 | 2 ++ > > > > I wonder if we could rewrite this test to use either the xfs_db write -d > > command on dirents or attrs directly; or the link/attrset commands, > > since AFAICT the dir/attr code doesn't itself run namecheck when > > creating entries/attrs. > > Can I leave that to you? :) Yes. > > > tests/xfs/158 | 1 + > > > tests/xfs/160 | 1 + > > > > inobtcount and bigtime are new features, maybe these two tests should > > lose the clause that checks that we can't upgrade a V4 filesystem? > > I'll take a look. > > > > tests/xfs/194 | 2 ++ > > > > Not sure why this one is fixated on $pagesize/8. Was that a requirement > > to induce an error? Or would this work just as well on a 1k fsblock fs? > > > > (Eric?) > > I can check if it could be made to work on $pagesize/4, but I'll > need to defer to Eric if that even makes sense. > > > > tests/xfs/513 | 1 + > > > > I think we should split this into separate tests for V4/V5 options and > > only _require_xfs_nocrc the one with V4 options, because I wouldn't want > > to stop testing V5 codepaths simply because someone turned off V4 > > support in the kernle. > > Ok. > > > > tests/xfs/526 | 1 + > > > > I'm at a loss on this one -- what it does is useful, but there aren't > > any V5 mkfs options that conflict as nicely as crc=0 does. > > Yes, I tried to look for conflicting options, but I couldn't find > anything. Maybe we'll grow some before the v4 support is retired > for real :) Well hilariously just yesterday djwong-wtf just grew one now that you can't format rtgroups=1 without exchange=1 so I guess there's some hope. --D --D