From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC07C32771 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 02:10:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B821720715 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 02:10:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727358AbgAGCKe (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2020 21:10:34 -0500 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:18475 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727326AbgAGCKe (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2020 21:10:34 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,404,1571673600"; d="scan'208";a="81410525" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2020 10:10:32 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXMBPEKD06.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.206]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F32406AB15 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 10:01:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.167.220.69] (10.167.220.69) by G08CNEXMBPEKD06.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 10:10:31 +0800 Message-ID: <5E13E895.8020005@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 10:10:29 +0800 From: Xiao Yang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.2; zh-CN; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fstests Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fsx: Add '-a' option to skip unsupported keep size automatically References: <20200106070654.13249-1-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200106070654.13249-2-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.220.69] X-ClientProxiedBy: G08CNEXCHPEKD04.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.200) To G08CNEXMBPEKD06.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.206) X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 43F32406AB15.AA37D X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On 2020/1/6 19:24, Amir Goldstein wrote: > A very strong NACK! > > Why are you making this change? > Did you read the description of the tests and try to understand the sequence > prescribed in the replay-ops file? > > Those are reproducers to specific issues that require a very specific sequence > of operations and it seems to me that 'keep_size' is there for a reason in every > one of those tests. > > For example, take the test generic/456, which I wrote, it has this link in the > comment above fsxops to a very elaborate email from Ted explaining the > problem:https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=151137380830381&w=2 > > You cannot just remove 'keep_size' from the test because then the test > doesn't do what it is intended to do. > > Did you read my reply to Eryu's patch which he referred you to? > https://spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg08007.html > > Instead of allowing test generic/456 to run on fs which doesn't support > FL_KEEP_SIZE, you should change the test to*require* support for > FL_KEEP_SIZE as well as require support for punch/zero/collapse: > > _require_xfs_io_command "falloc" "-k" > _require_xfs_io_command "fpunch" > _require_xfs_io_command "fzero" > _require_xfs_io_command "fcollapse" > > Same for the other tests that you changed to ignore keep_size. Hi Amir, Thanks for your comment. I had a doubt and asked Eryu after sending the second patch: https://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg13278.html Current fsx skips all unsupported ops(e.g. punch_hole, zero_range, collapse_range) automatically even if they are specified by --replay-ops. Is this existing logic wrong? I read your suggestion before, but i just have a worry: xfs_io commands cannot detect the supported flags of fallocate() correctly in one case(i.e. xfs_io commands are not supported but fallocate(2) supports flags). fsx has many test_ functions to check these flags, so we can make fsx call only these test_ functions by adding a option and then report "not run" by analyzing the generated output. Best Regards, Xiao Yang