From: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
To: Eryu Guan <eguan@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
tytso@mit.edu, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
chenlong <chenlongcl.chen@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group?
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:08:04 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220126073804.qtrzaru4v2dhgagm@riteshh-domain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220125074325.GB12255@e18g06458.et15sqa>
On 22/01/25 03:43PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:32:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > Hello Zhang/Ted,
> >
> > Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection
> > testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
> >
> > Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
> >
> > Meanwhile, I was thinking we should anyway remove auto and quick group from this
> > test as it could trigger a bug on in older kernel targets. Thoughts?
>
> IMO, ext4/054 is a targeted regression test and should be in auto group,
> which ensures the bug doesn't get re-introduced in future.
Yes, I agree with it.
>
> I think you could just skip this test to fit your kernel version, e.g.
>
> echo ext4/054 > ext4.exclude
> ./check -X ext4.exclude
Sure, thanks Eryu.
-ritesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-26 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-25 6:02 [RFC 0/1] ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group? Ritesh Harjani
2022-01-25 6:02 ` [RFC 1/1] ext4/054: Remove auto and quick group Ritesh Harjani
2022-01-25 7:43 ` [RFC 0/1] ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group? Eryu Guan
2022-01-26 7:38 ` Ritesh Harjani [this message]
2022-01-25 20:08 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2022-01-26 7:36 ` Ritesh Harjani
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=20220126073804.qtrzaru4v2dhgagm@riteshh-domain \
--to=riteshh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=chenlongcl.chen@huawei.com \
--cc=eguan@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.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