From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4BD91B6D08 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 13:00:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733835657; cv=none; b=NJ0T0PFRe4PPRqpE5XL0piovWa17lWs3HEwBHOIeEtr+rC/G153iR7Nwy/Hf3rAz8IJR3cl9WaSYdr7Hy7NGJRszOqNW1cldJCqv80J8tMC+HTSg18fsjCUncS8dCRSBAz9G3TkzbjvXXbkD4MLfOctuVDUb7tStRuxOWNJ18/8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733835657; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uBUbcgnLax/TXHUTyY7I7MvxNn4KyXa755W8StzgjS0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CVmioGrzEz5Bq8M6iBVffl3BaNXmN8N3PySNUV3GPvSN7pZYQq57rHAGDeaSFzgmX2YG4d7DMxwpYkxSgxbDbKnJXYMCI+d/RTX+8GdWlja7yxRGuhJC3Qy8wPU0uAIMtOTX2B1aaTz4Cs/aDJZojmdBIG9/hWXWNc9wiwOSSB8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=GqmFIYnt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="GqmFIYnt" Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-173-48-102-3.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.102.3]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 4BAD0XSM027840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:00:34 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1733835635; bh=DHUmL1lsFJiVd97upOLWdbOsV6YNVAKHpoQhEyaESdg=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GqmFIYnteg1gx7XCN28TwEIsKVKkfnGq1G0uRE1rTjL2jXMnbgjd+XA7FGDX7iPHj omGF7hJpjgvNYOw9QxIO1JlzYynCTvrnXi0zVIBXeN6mFCbhxNyBPzdi1O2gW+iyhG 27QSMNk6qTQi8FXz/wRHp9DKYSR1tPeK8uZUwKbR13E2pvBenVi+gt8j4GrCWBxkmc ar8e8G2/NVl0buRy2dCaZbj9Il/9iXqhCnUPcnq1fQaAQZjBIVC4yASJw0Qhcd3D7j RNCCUDTV9dkJMdlB7nzh88gNRqBXB4RafnZmOt56Df9WJWsYckS/QhwYSV08k2pM4M 8S7aERKmQ8d3g== Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 2AEC515C6796; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:00:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:00:33 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Zorro Lang , Brian Foster , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: remove _supported_fs Message-ID: <20241210130033.GA1839653@mit.edu> References: <20241210065900.1235379-1-hch@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241210065900.1235379-1-hch@lst.de> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 07:58:24AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > this series removes the remaining _supported_fs calls and replaces them > with a new _exclude_fs call. > > The first patch removes a _supported_fs for a relatively new test from > Brian that fails on other file systems. We should still run it so that > people have a chance to fix the corruption, so I think this make sense. > > Then the ext4 directory is split so that the shared extN tests have their > own directory, and then it finally does the switch over now that now many > _supported_fs calls are left. Hmm, instead of doing this (would require hard-coding support for ext2 and ext3 file systems needing to use ext-common), why not just have special-case code which causes ext2 and ext3 file systems to include the ext4 group, and then we'll have _exclude_fs declaractions as needed for ext2 and ext3? After all, ext3 has been removed except for the very oldest LTS kernels (and I dount anyone is actually testing ext3 using xfstests these days), and ext2 is not used by most distributions (they use CONFIG_EXT4_USE_EXT2) and the reason why we've kept it around is that it's a realtively simple file system that still uses the more modern, non-legacy vfs/mm interfaces. So it might not be worth it to move a bunch of tests and creating a new (somewhat ugly) group, ext4-common, IMO. Cheers, - Ted