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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76C7C6FA86 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 06:36:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236940AbiIEGgc (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:36:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43106 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236844AbiIEGgI (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:36:08 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2334E38B4; Sun, 4 Sep 2022 23:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id F320068AFE; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:35:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:35:39 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: dsterba@suse.cz, Zorro Lang , fdmanana@kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Filipe Manana Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove 'seek' group from btrfs/007 Message-ID: <20220905063539.GA2092@lst.de> References: <20220902020030.oho6ssdrdzjy66pw@zlang-mailbox> <20220902094424.GQ13489@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220902094424.GQ13489@twin.jikos.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:44:24AM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > commit 6fd9210bc97710f81e5a7646a2abfd11af0f0c28 > > Author: Christoph Hellwig > > Date: Mon Feb 18 10:05:03 2019 +0100 > > > > fstests: add a seek group > > > > So I'd like to let Christoph help to double check it. > > It's quite obvious from the test itself that it tests only send/receive, > which is mentioned in the changelog. The commit adding the seek group > does not provide any rationale so it's hard to argue but as it stands > now the 'seek' group should not be there. Probably. Unless it somehow exercised seeks through the userspace seek code I can't see any good rationale for this addition, and the patch was far too long ago for me to remember.