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 F2CA029CB4D; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 16:24:26 +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=1760718267; cv=none; b=hkU74jNU0uUCFHFy5cxoYGDzBEg3g8AYlp8PB7MF6j93N/ZiPLGO3WU2Go0KuswKaVTawzFjaNGVozcLn4S6f8RN9R9GXPSho0344jT+Y1+oPDNE1b0IlldX4Kl61gf10Wdvr7lkg/jj4qaN7kRslYQBYUAPTnpTzzG5+rUlTcU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760718267; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g2VAQggSjsfuUWwNDQen3+j4QFacOmRINM7RXpA0JxA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nWf4Wutv7P6xjSV1FD76/QAdLB7z13piKChPR1CugKs/Tgo8u5b1n1HIFgt7rYCpMN7eCMQAHKEfgv1VyFqG3fubvxtMPVF0JVT+F4eG/Z/sLUVRw7VF6MUBV4KRFnkjkuzTCILpGtDlIP1i+Y/kAwTvQ2kCfUuMfnr+/dd+9og= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=gb8rTJDl; 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="gb8rTJDl" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87C6BC113D0; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 16:24:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760718266; bh=g2VAQggSjsfuUWwNDQen3+j4QFacOmRINM7RXpA0JxA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gb8rTJDlBHJ2XGTeaoPuk4Tt0plMmWU2q8ATNpUTKKVmUPFuj1/WR0q841i6rEJJZ 5thGFFNf8DNLy0NdZ33B9YkAtjfTuU2DJ3zPkusfdVkD8LDtMsF8nRqCTsNGSeumue HHYBjfm4uQ0yFOFAo4QrNQMUYZc8lURDsA7hiEPBJyWT2XxJNwk8gyN3/hKvpDnwUe 7opyabHO0EcpGz9pEwvdAAsrZKAgxQiW+BSm47v83PxZektYLeXtLzVfVVGI6leUCl eqC+p36kkgpLH1GJv1UAmI60qxBAEcHMZX8D0k+Ug8UmuQwTfMBBZ6PSV154yZ5Zsp MURDAxEyn4VGQ== Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 09:24:26 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: zlang@redhat.com, fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] generic/{482,757}: skip test if there are no FUA writes Message-ID: <20251017162426.GE6178@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <176054617853.2391029.10911105763476647916.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <176054617970.2391029.13902894502531643815.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> 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: On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 09:22:49PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:37:45AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong > > > > Both of these tests fail if the filesystem doesn't issue a FUA write to > > a device, but ... there's no requirement that filesystems actually use > > FUA at all. For example, a fuse filesystem that writes to the block > > device's page cache and issues fsync() will not cause the block layer to > > issue FUA writes for the dirty pages. Change that to _notrun. > > Hmm, zoned ZXFS never issues FUA and didn't fail. Oh, these use dm thin > and thus are _notrun. Yep. > > index 8c114ee03058c6..25e05d7cdb1c0d 100755 > > --- a/tests/generic/482 > > +++ b/tests/generic/482 > > @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ _log_writes_remove > > prev=$(_log_writes_mark_to_entry_number mkfs) > > [ -z "$prev" ] && _fail "failed to locate entry mark 'mkfs'" > > cur=$(_log_writes_find_next_fua $prev) > > -[ -z "$cur" ] && _fail "failed to locate next FUA write" > > +[ -z "$cur" ] && _notrun "failed to locate next FUA write" > > This isn't really the last but the first FUA write we're looking for > here, right? Yes, it's looking for the first FUA write after mkfs, which is (presumably) the first directio O_SYNC write or (more likely) journal commit. > > > > -[ -z "$cur" ] && _fail "failed to locate next FUA write" > > +[ -z "$cur" ] && _notrun "failed to locate next FUA write" > > Same here. > > The only reason I'm asking is because if we did this for every write > we'd kinda defeat the purpose of the test. But we're only doing it > to see if any FUA writes exists as far as I can tell, so we should > be ok. But it might be worth changing the messages. "could not locate any FUA write" ? --D