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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 865BDC48BE9 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670D621655 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730682AbfFXNHw (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:52 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:59950 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728927AbfFXNHw (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:52 -0400 Received: from callcc.thunk.org ([66.31.38.53]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x5OD7V3V003440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:31 -0400 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id E484742002B; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:30 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Eryu Guan , Gabriel Krisman Bertazi , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, "Lakshmipathi.G" Subject: Re: Removing the shared class of tests Message-ID: <20190624130730.GD1805@mit.edu> References: <20190612184033.21845-1-krisman@collabora.com> <20190612184033.21845-2-krisman@collabora.com> <20190616144440.GD15846@desktop> <20190616200154.GA7251@mit.edu> <20190620112903.GF15846@desktop> <20190620162116.GA4650@mit.edu> <20190620175035.GA5380@magnolia> <20190624071610.GA10195@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20190624071610.GA10195@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:16:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > As for the higher level question? The shared tests always confused the > heck out of me. generic with the right feature checks seem like a much > better idea. Agreed. I've sent out a patch series to bring the number of patches in shared down to four. Here's what's left: shared/002 --- needs a feature test to somehow determine whether a file system supports thousads of xattrs in a file (currently on btrfs and xfs) shared/011 --- needs some way of determining that a file system supports cgroup-aware writeback (currently enabled only for ext4 and btrfs). Do we consider lack of support of cgroup-aware writeback a bug? If so, maybe it doesn't need a feature test at all? shared/032 --- needs a feature test to determine whether or not a file system's mkfs supports detection of "foreign file systems". e.g., whether or not it warns if you try overwrite a file system w/o another file system. (Currently enabled by xfs and btrfs; it doesn't work for ext[234] because e2fsprogs, because I didn't want to break existing shell scripts, only warns when it is used interactively. We could a way to force it to be activated it points out this tests is fundamentally testing implementation choices of the userspace utilities of a file system. Does it belong in xfstests? : ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) shared/289 --- contains ext4, xfs, and btrfs mechanisms for determining blocks which are unallocated. Has hard-coded invocations to dumpe2fs, xfs_db, and /bin/btrfs. These don't have obvious solutions. We could maybe add a _notrun if adding the thousands of xattrs fails with an ENOSPC or related error (f2fs uses something else). Maybe we just move shared/011 and move it generic/ w/o a feature test. Maybe we remove shared/032 altogether, since for e2fsprogs IMHO the right place to put it is the regression test in e2fsprogs --- but I know xfs has a different test philosophy for xfsprogs; and tha begs the question of what to do for mkfs.btrfs. And maybe we just split up shared/289 to three different tests in ext4/, xfs/, and btrfs/, since it would make the test script much simpler to understand? What do people think? - Ted