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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 0AF82C48BD6 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:37:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E06205C9 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="QviN5Lz3" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726687AbfFZChV (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:37:21 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f196.google.com ([209.85.215.196]:37438 "EHLO mail-pg1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726485AbfFZChU (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:37:20 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id y8so415348pgl.4; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:37:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=grlVAwsoHm6qiNKeKxEtNH2ATBws2Wr1IWeBaz5cOck=; b=QviN5Lz3QKExaZRbMMxDWfFQLC7wZt58uJRrAvmzq6e+Jeb3IuozjH/q07w9APIy4v Zwf6Yj+I5M+acGFH3xZnLsBOHkV+lItcZX6G2xiUDLdwbDb3dBpByToMwYjyUXgz+nif Db8M6l5AhBJEa2YfSllwJ0fLT60+eSpRpgWiPFTUsPN/ax/QQolKdB1PI8HJIg68IL+0 +c9mclfKWao5WNaDhp24x58Kbynd7CIpkS5pDYDrEzQhxjCbohV4WeDmmw0mneFSBs8l EBLwMiGl9rxWxBWMBheOQaYtB4yEqR/ZyDsqej696TLNp/tGJr7UNUKHuPfBMgOTmjCF rwSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=grlVAwsoHm6qiNKeKxEtNH2ATBws2Wr1IWeBaz5cOck=; b=rlBxaWwoucfg8x0OP/ugF4nlwHY2PWAw27gsmF/KMDwCZvuqxYM4AOMmWbesZ38qdk YWNoWhTJ/Fy8zqv75ajSGvk4XZceq+uOww/t1ouIWKJEPAlsSM6JvZJh96W4BEYskwVy Me4j+REa90ZOO7Humje56vZR1m7cs4u/0TJqKJEt2xPHKEL9aVOsP/9eszKJgqaJVg57 UJQzaDnJZBDREWubVf/3RC62WJlksOvI2FkWtJj8KkY8Xsfqp1pGJ0Oq2H2dWJy6E8aa TP+nf4n3zFTLWW00bF1JocbFDgm5f8y6Iqg6xVk9Rf4vx0BTs9TmNekTsZOIzSvXhFOj /QZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUNjCJeJNNMac6aS/JwZFiEyd5Ff8gzTvjCz1VVIv3hM3aLXmvu BJNsu6br1Tt0Jroo5/KMR8k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxkVg2DHEVLT/xevqx3R8fu7W9UlpkcAeeVbs+Xiv14ji5chXoNWu6JnRG9vagPoLhJl5Vv/A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:be0d:: with SMTP id a13mr1339867pjs.84.1561516640089; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([178.128.102.47]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l2sm14479234pgs.33.2019.06.25.19.37.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 10:37:13 +0800 From: Eryu Guan To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , Gabriel Krisman Bertazi , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, "Lakshmipathi.G" Subject: Re: Removing the shared class of tests Message-ID: <20190626023713.GA7943@desktop> 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> <20190624130730.GD1805@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20190624130730.GD1805@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) 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 09:07:30AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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) Another option would be just whitelist btrfs and xfs in a require rule, we already have few require rules work like that, e.g. _fstyp_has_non_default_seek_data_hole(), this is not ideal, but works in such corner cases. Thanks, Eryu > > 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