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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092E0C4363A for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 02:14:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C680420720 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 02:14:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="P7N7qMoP" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404360AbgJ2COe (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 22:14:34 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:61610 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726775AbgJ1Vfj (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:35:39 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09SH6nXn028543; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:26:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=QDGgvWxLF+me3qyIss5Dm7I984aY7/ySB19FztNeyf8=; b=P7N7qMoP9A5iC37fpbevKSKWxnRtKJCLKFPvicvLPmIKbvmlfEhyC6+LsavHWWjiiCMf NjgXQRVbKombAaGaJ1LqJZy7Vh7KrrY5DfRr4S/yJb8JZiVz5bmJs02Mwsu5U4QVjUF8 coXztu0j+40DJlavV7OwjJs/OKJ0+3T746oj0mizNyo/PLK+EL3HOFiqysHNd67p+oUq sSagGxwqdvGEmjz4kwyAdCHFx7Rh5BANeT2s7mNkU1zSv1jliZ2eomjU5y9CBqQ7Zj5I PsrtTOmCDUHXBpXqmvVg9X96nFX4Y77KeWawtHA/juuEs+MLUFSg3UWjO4+MMVFGcms+ uw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 34ew3jj8gv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:26:43 -0400 Received: from m0098414.ppops.net (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 09SH73vk029774; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:26:42 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 34ew3jj8fn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:26:42 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09SH3Isb029362; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:26:09 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 34cbhh4r7s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:26:08 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 09SHQ6nZ37618048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:26:06 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8880CA4051; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:26:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327F7A4040; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:26:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.199.33.247] (unknown [9.199.33.247]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:26:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: properly check for dirty state in ext4_inode_datasync_dirty() To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Cc: harshad shirwadkar , Andrea Righi , Andreas Dilger , Ext4 Developers List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20201024140115.GA35973@xps-13-7390> <20201028152930.GQ5691@mit.edu> From: Ritesh Harjani Message-ID: <0a81bf78-1ccc-d10a-67f0-f6d24119408c@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 22:56:04 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201028152930.GQ5691@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.312,18.0.737 definitions=2020-10-28_08:2020-10-28,2020-10-28 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010280110 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On 10/28/20 8:59 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 08:57:03AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> >> Well, I too noticed this yesterday while I was testing xfstests -g swap. >> Those tests were returning _notrun, hence that could be the reason why >> it didn't get notice in XFSTESTing from Ted. > > Yeah, one of the things I discussed with Harshad is we really need a > test that looks like generic/472, but which is in shared/NNN, and > which unconditionally tries to use swapon for those file systems where > swapfiles are expected to work. This is actually the second > regression caused by our breaking swapfile support (the other being > the iomap bmap change), which escaped our testing because we didn't > notice that generic/472 was skipped. Yes, agreed this is second in a row. So with fast-commit, swap tests returned _not_run, since swapon syscall returned -EINVAL in _require_scratch_swapfile() itself. This is due to some old commit in fstests to make swap tests work on btrfs on both kernels (with and w/o support of swapon in btrfs), it first checks in _require_scratch_swapfile() to see if swapon even works or not. Hence it skips to run further if _require_scratch_swapfile() fails. Secondly with bmap to iomap interface, I guess it should pass all tests except for case with fallocate files, which I think is tests/generic/496. But here too it assumes that if 1st time it fails with falloc then swapon may not be supported for that fs and hence does _notrun. I am actually working on this to make these swap tests return some definitive pass or failure status. Will be sending some patches soon. I could use your idea to add a test in shared/NNN for testing swap with fallocate files for ext4 and xfs (for bmap to iomap ext4 regression category of tests) Thanks -ritesh