Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] xfs: Add a testcase to check remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs

Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
2025-02-19T15:04:50Z

On 2/18/25 03:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:18:48AM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>> On 2/14/25 03:19, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 03:30:50PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/25 03:17, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:39:58PM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>>> Ok, so CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=n is the correct behaviour (known mount
>>> option, invalid configuration being asked for), and it is the
>>> CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=y behaviour that is broken.
>> Okay, so do you find this testcase (patch 3/3 xfs: Add a testcase to check
>> remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs) useful,
> Not at this point in time, because xfs/189 is supposed to exercise
> attr2/noattr2 mount/remount behaviour and take into account all the
> weirdness of the historic mount behaviour.
>
> Obviously, it is not detecting that this noattr2 remount behaviour
> was broken, so that test needs fixing/additions. Indeed, it's
> probably important to understand why xfs/189 isn't detecting this
> failure before going any further, right?
Yes. Let me look into what xfs/189 does and why it isn't detecting the
noattr2 remount broken behavior. Thank you for the pointer.

About "Patch 1/3: xfs/539: Skip noattr2 remount option on v5 file
systems" --> I wrote the patch because xfs/539 has started failing in
one of fstests CI runs because RHEL 10 has started disabling xfs v4
support i.e, CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=n. Do you think modifying patch
1/3(xfs/539) in such a way that the test ignores the remount failures
with noattr2 and continues the test is an appropriate idea (since the
test xfs/539 only intends to check the dmesg warnings)?

--NR

>
> IMO, it is better to fix existing tests that exercise the behaviour
> in question than it is to add a new test that covers just what the
> old test missed.
>
> -Dave.

--
Nirjhar Roy
Linux Kernel Developer
IBM, Bangalore