From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 3BDE73A9870 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 13:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788443644; cv=none; b=InPOvSE2Jb+O1wE+G+pVr4pyKkuI2yFSIMzm5/EM1Fzf0PkuBGMSoRVFlVRTJOPApG6WBzjQ+hCo+pVw0q73YEEX0Il94MoMAu45/iP23gSNaMfn8sHMGOfdiL+lBNGJJRo0vtv3K2PPnn7jUQcPuG2KpRNXIN3SBxm5PySpzsw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788443644; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FqeyNZEssjYG4315AwkCV9nCywE0yyVUaQvFESEAYX0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ikqRWKPmaF/3InXtXFi+zwit/cscwytrxgOQLiG0i1gyKXMvu6S5Zbx2Mop3BOum2f/7BOCXptH7M2DU82I0mnV3D/pg6L38zyHbxx5TgDeFM3s+sRVcaB9tvGkm21rRwCorWvwpCtVyFI5czKz3LY5iskYLDoGi+vcZm22YIFk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=L7EhgQTx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="L7EhgQTx" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C7401F00ACA; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 13:53:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788443627; bh=ubpiXP9zeY6nisNbCcAy6QTgfx5te8bKLPjfwaRbbSI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=L7EhgQTxHjykEO3rkq+Ngk1hG/LI6d5jCcaGEWaQX7WJOdOQB9+5aZ0nn6eVOqrKd tzxRBQAtmUG9qkkbNK/+OcBcyfD6qiJSS8XiR4ZDpg2edAYsRoqI+JCEGI5MRrcy52 TuX+ennaH/PLJ/DZknVRKN1BPx7RZoutDcp4zjnS8uJR8XgD9Ic6sAqUVoTCFBs7uQ nt+dI/6N8q3ovcE9AJeK1Ss99ONKKCypn8eNnYj4tFiYVSycr2TwC2Po6qaQL5h95Q mavBdpltO3HesbVHZp8B2YzOKYt+TBy43F6Byf074uk/35o/Rog05oaabkWDOMczB2 vk6mNrEYw/ZAg== Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 21:53:39 +0800 From: Zorro Lang To: Prabhakar Pujeri Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] xfstests: add missing _require_scratch checks Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Prabhakar Pujeri , fstests@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J. Wong" References: <20260903035344.752-1-prabhakar.pujeri@dell.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: <20260903035344.752-1-prabhakar.pujeri@dell.com> On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 03:53:41AM +0000, Prabhakar Pujeri wrote: > Consolidated resend of the remaining _require_scratch fixes, as > requested by Zorro. The first three of this batch (btrfs/333 v3, > overlay/081 v2, btrfs/273 v2) are already in his local tree. > > v2: > - Resent as a single series, per Zorro's request. > - Carry Darrick J. Wong's Reviewed-by (generic/590,735 and generic/795) > and Zorro Lang's Reviewed-by (f2fs/015,016); besides message > re-formatting there is no code change. > > v1 pieces for reference: > - generic/590,735: https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20260831104148.2243-1-prabhakar.pujeri@dell.com/ > - generic/795: https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20260902050139.2426-1-prabhakar.pujeri@dell.com/ > - f2fs/015,016: https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20260902050133.2413-1-prabhakar.pujeri@dell.com/ > > > Prabhakar Pujeri (3): > generic/590,735: add missing _require_scratch check > generic/795: add missing _require_scratch check > f2fs/015,016: add missing _require_scratch checks Hi, Thanks for this work, I'm wondering why generic/590 and generic/735 are combined into one patch while generic/795 is split out? Given that they all just add a single line of _require_scratch. While I think this could easily be a single patch, if you prefer splitting them up, grouping them per-directory (generic, f2fs, btrfs, overlay ...) would make sense. Also, I recall you had a few other similar patches, such as: btrfs/333: require scratch before checking encoded reads btrfs/273: add missing _require_scratch check overlay/081: add missing _require_scratch check Please bundle all of them into a single patch series (keeping any existing Reviewed-by tags) so they can be reviewed and merged together. Thanks, Zorro > > tests/f2fs/015 | 1 + > tests/f2fs/016 | 1 + > tests/generic/590 | 1 + > tests/generic/735 | 1 + > tests/generic/795 | 2 ++ > 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > -- > 2.55.0 >