From: Zorro Lang <zlang@kernel.org>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic/362: remove the old file to reflect new mount options
Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 17:02:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ahlU702Bo_QRTCCY@zlang-mailbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bea8a50b-4a14-4351-a56a-d295b90750b5@suse.com>
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 07:12:24AM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> 在 2026/5/27 22:33, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 04:20:38PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > > I'd rather add a copy of the test that runs on the scratch device
> > > > that can control the environment. Or maybe just change the test
> > > > to use the scratch device?
> > >
> > > I'm completely happy with using scratch device instead of test dev.
> > >
> > > If no special reason to use test dev, the next update will go scratch dev
> > > instead.
> >
> > I went back and re-read this. What is the special mount option you
> > change? If you want to always exercise this as nocow, maybe add a new
> > btrfs test that is a copy and uses the scratch device? Or am I
> > misunderstanding something?
> >
>
> My point is, the current script prevent the test case to respect certain
> mount options, thus reduce the coverage.
>
> E.g. in a multi-section fstests setup, default and nodatasum mount options
> are defined in different sections, and default mount option will be run
> first.
>
> Then the next nodatasum section will still utilize the old inode created
> with regular default options, thus reduce the coverage.
>
>
> Sure, a dedicated btrfs copy will help, but that will introduce duplication.
> Not sure what is the proper way to handle such situation.
If there is a specific btrfs bug (commit) that can be 100% reproduced by
slightly modifying this case (e.g. use a specific mkfs or mount option),
I think it’s worth splitting it into a separate test case for better
test coverage and known issue tracking.
Thanks,
Zorro
>
>
> For now I'll follow Filipe's review to use _cleanup() to delete those
> involves test cases.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-29 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-26 7:00 [PATCH] fstests: generic/362: remove the old file to reflect new mount options Qu Wenruo
2026-05-27 6:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-05-27 6:50 ` Qu Wenruo
2026-05-27 13:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-05-27 21:42 ` Qu Wenruo
2026-05-29 9:02 ` Zorro Lang [this message]
2026-05-27 14:26 ` Filipe Manana
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ahlU702Bo_QRTCCY@zlang-mailbox \
--to=zlang@kernel.org \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox