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 094C719066D for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2025 18:23:40 +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=1745087024; cv=none; b=YnmkZQ7M7ol5bW240+ZPVbhohG3/ANqbtGD4GKy8j2b52QtsEdpU5oHFYU0dmS4aIRdW1wcO67l0/plVIwzDU4wcXcSmCzyJ+fGzq2AyVSZuQRPfCMceuptVT/rNDBIGRXRFnLYMJ63KMrpEQf4w+lxmE+uxsopXnf3Xh6AK9fA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745087024; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MQ/lAuOAINMLp3+NyBnwVts20fbhitzdLD4DT5GgikE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=N/cCB4YzUtp2NTyBHR2kHvG0c19s7MtDuNakxg9WV94eQXpIO1wtqt7RHo3tO/rJom7L64QTqSwB3LwnU3s8+qZUyEgK0ivc8jfGyxPMBngxg3GagHAHZ8E7igqG1q5+h0gY+lq8ME0uM9flXErUumIYj/L14DSj9rWhTB7WwYk= 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; 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 Received: from macsyma.thunk.org ([204.26.30.8]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 53JINQ9L007901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 19 Apr 2025 14:23:28 -0400 Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 0A0163458E4; Sat, 19 Apr 2025 13:22:49 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 13:22:49 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, kdevops@lists.linux.dev, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz Subject: Re: ext4 v6.15-rc2 baseline Message-ID: <20250419182249.GC210438@mit.edu> References: <20250416233415.GA3779528@mit.edu> <20250417163820.GA25655@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250417183711.GB6008@mit.edu> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kdevops@lists.linux.dev 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, Apr 17, 2025 at 01:56:29PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > Perhaps something like (not tested): > > From a9386348701e387942e3eaaef8ee9daac8ace16a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Luis Chamberlain > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:54:25 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] ext4: add ordered requirement for generic/04[456] > > generic/04[456] tests how truncate and delayed allocation works. > ext4 uses the data=ordered to avoid exposing stale data, and > so it uses a different mechanism than xfs. So these tests will fail > on it. No, you misunderstand the problem. The generic/04[456] tests are checking for a specific implementation detail in how xfs works to prevent stale data from being exposing data after a crash. Ext4 has a different method for achieving the same goal, using data=ordered, which is the default. So checking for data=ordered isn't necessary, because it is the default. But how it achieves thinigs means that these tests, which tests for a specific implementation, doesn't work. Fundamentally, these tests check what happens when you are writing to a file and the file system is shutdown (simulating a power failure). Exaclty how this handled is not guaranteed by POSIX, so testing for a specific behaviour is in my opinion, not really that great of an idea. In any case, the fact that we don't do exactly what these tests are expecting is not a problem as far as I'm concerned, and so we skip them. Cheers, - Ted