From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 C3E912C15BE for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2026 16:53:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784480039; cv=none; b=btv6xSENzl7uAA4ZHl/VILukg4l7wxN7jlb9Ywmcord2uoeGJ949JsGWqdj+UGb7uFVDZjVQg6naRZruFeJTHpjhv6M/JET/0RDEfKcpVzpx4T7caIHkUB3JYoTUuXWVKBGHw8/g94p96gT2gyt5BYGgmEJUIqhG7NwhkRV+Ve8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784480039; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OR6238KyDI7VBDKNv/XrlL9jFcMKRTOny5+F5ErJlOI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PdFxxFBOXdH8wPONg1+CQsgCIERgNGcuDS5f0m3eSDfclS3FP4gWgy7ZGNDCAgVe6lnQQESe7o9JDL1//VrS6B37Tw33PR4f71gbJCihprPxBEwcbRJ2+n7ysC+o9Sq6xaS592sRQPDpzty+mzHjt56sQLWQtprabomanOdd54g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=GR4EOGzH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="GR4EOGzH" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org (pool-108-49-65-18.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.49.65.18]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 66JGrpBI008589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 19 Jul 2026 12:53:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1784480033; bh=XFg10I3KOcDI21xuB3OqUiEPcvRIr7GNlWX72motYo0=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GR4EOGzHCgpG6OaD93br5/huFmiHSEmi2lPYCF52gAAotznaZnOhgoy0P2W2NgKgs gfhQ3qsuGQCx/kqciCCX2gtzGEpPQmCHJzyCcc+a3AOU5T3eTIIIXcVog5lc3F5EBp dlk1v+VomtmWFCA0iuyxgSHk+u6AVI7d2FWLf0tMivXmrw7VFi95rVLqZku/U4uggI JDzKWTriVwWb8QBlhEt5ggck1j5QMNcIyWj8Em3to47UOw5uaFfrpiFDtt941MJond Sh//ISMajIG6syPNp8Tf09SKptL9GBfpu3phLIwYXal67U0Y2S1lqaCEqG25Z92ctD ktduQjaWT4KCA== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id B9302AD0152; Sun, 19 Jul 2026 12:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 12:52:50 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Viacheslav Dubeyko , "fstests@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "slava@dubeyko.com" Subject: Re: Should we consider disable generic/563 for file systems that do not support cgroup2? Message-ID: References: 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 Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 11:57:04PM -0500, Zorro Lang wrote: > Thank you for your reply. You are right. I was just listing some > possible options, and I did not mean we must change the kernel for > testing. Changing the kernel just for a _notrun is indeed not worth > it. If there is no simple way to implement the _require_* function, > we can `_exclude_fs hfs` directly :) I wouldn't necessarily rule out changing the kernel so that file systems can declare whether they can support cgroupv2. The advantage is that we wouldn't need to keep adding "_exclude_fs xxx" each time we try to make fstets work on the simpler file systems. It also means that if a file system adds support for cgroupv2, we wouldn't need to change fstests --- also, if the patch gets backported to an older kernel (either an LTS or an enterprise distro kernel) we don't need to try to modulate the _exclude_fs using kernel version numbers (which isn't guaranteed to work given the backporting possibility). This is a philosophical issue, and reasonable people could disagree on this approach. For my part, I created /sys/fs/ext4/features/* precisely so that userspace (and fstests) so we can test if a particular feature is available on a particular kernel. Otherwise, a test to see whether a particular feature "works" might have a false positive if the feature is broken, and the way we test whether the feature is present is basically what was accidentally broken with by a regression. Cheers, - Ted