From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79EF71A841F; Sat, 1 Mar 2025 17:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740851178; cv=none; b=NbErHgYWiCGmIZrxwZ4gNLXNchCbF/zrew1bJ+ZILOAXub1MjFe85iWnHLG/JgcbbBSuULJoIUcJ+mpBYwbUq4PoFhx3QFJxVzvGARuZfxZctF+TIhV0PiEgqFZ4s36P1y6zS9zdJ9Id0iLlNfJX4dAROJop3e0Woaam9R+YXBo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740851178; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Gtgm+HfkQpBAKcEGPTOlQARCrxJQv1VFX2vnqly2Bm8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:References: MIME-version:Content-type; b=hk/BsK48srPuMbg73jRMx2ezjB1Zb+JVU1qxKACz78j7Lt7rkPaS6rCpHWmgoqhUr/hv2ruBVYTzb1iFvUDoZGN1nZXRdC77GDaXo7nL0lpOlN0RHb+Ke96GbVbmhK1eP3FWpktxD8LGo9k0rd1Zo5HSe7dnRZuNdl9NDG2PhOY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=IcKGZAvh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="IcKGZAvh" Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2238e884f72so5605805ad.3; Sat, 01 Mar 2025 09:46:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1740851176; x=1741455976; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:message-id:date :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=S5EMC4QTPsTfx7rf08ONLES150yxmA4ww7kM1gnGqK0=; b=IcKGZAvhn6LXqO3NJcSxthOfGSjpK6QdKEeb/QpX1iw3nIQ5T+RGXYExvfdLFmYuqE K8+09fk8P1Qvya+KeGIN1rkPjm0pSou/yT6LNvysXqeg35OHywppTNLE3DSIey85tLV5 4U2LcyoeVXTwydm2XXo17mZNyTQVqbmVaRITLy7cOx/exijnKkOvfCThV8PJXsOKzkrk Mtr989ACDtgGdWlrO8onat/ziX8+znECzlVIk6SSqIq+BRqRRcaCK0QPw20LoA660Dwi 5ZYj/MANc9dEQXnkYk4cnmdZq6vho7NDu8PN545QC/HM4JaibuxzVw7+bcUzbJh+bPWG uYtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740851176; x=1741455976; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:message-id:date :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=S5EMC4QTPsTfx7rf08ONLES150yxmA4ww7kM1gnGqK0=; b=HcaM+NSHX2SmDdqz398UhXCNVztEQAo+FTFYR4YqLDwzQXeX2tEYHWPKqve52b8ysL ncINdcapJJ5mfmavqdbVcTBQPLWaORkkHWvW+W4NSPN0bNZHv6tH4UOzMcay15Ha5Q2M qCvfiJP/27TGdr0EG3exmTKv1EkqAs26TzHe9pJR0bj4YUjr0B9ttZknzL2qgWuEDAkZ kYiQG5D502m5V4tkQsKUdPWxbUtMMRoIaqGRw/KWJe+aTl659jswDiO9ElhmJjYpkPpF ov/j5FcFUiFxUO/+Zm2Pzlu+tzu3Qq8Tg8efnzFqzqt1MsXp5+dEtlsx6S8+p/FBRZr7 KJ0Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUyjm/DlEL3R6AhR7eVS0nCCU+LXc+Qbz9rE/8ZnIXCo25AWveBxHgicNQkwn+Sf1c5/tijOz8jZDgP@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXWrlkOE1pOMWE6ycWwlSaMLC4u2SrqJwNFfv8pRWm0CsPpo9YhRFw6CiLofkPPobWyfuwr0ZLl@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwfOoD7//y7D8VMMMjzfV3oO3Ewv8xzrzddGp1kHzDO/TMP8pfF SkClx9PI+MZRGFEh6wBlcrfG3BBRWcVTG23KJncZ57QytWkQDSV7 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvcMlT38S9YrFK9/Ue1ipYxC+GQAz4TeWKIrGWnxFFfprr5Ji7l7tyDPDBuBwo k4l1/8gtWohe0PTXrEc9ZmLbCz1gt5b7KETNWbdIqV/h2ALONsuzoV/XtBGNfQ/Z6fYEmCu4RYw +t1L9AifLpiy5QSHS/ioAz2i9Ngnl2/qg+68jM1K/YSqX8pqo99GXfTNmrDFw3d16430H/bi6JU VExcGwUIFSqP/C4x+zDMLfjszNRDDGot8Yzutyu5c2O9gGFR6bOqNWlEf7++Vc0EX/pGrb/qod5 9Tg/tycP0E0K/buh8X+nICFmKGp8Qdn01q0n8Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGLYa1RZ5t0cuEAVsiCUoSiG35w5JXi8zPh4yvcaqsvxMkzNHS2n7S/luxzuvx7NMCDstghxw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:fc8d:b0:223:44dc:3f36 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2236925eef4mr125123875ad.43.1740851176520; Sat, 01 Mar 2025 09:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from dw-tp ([49.205.218.89]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-22355773b58sm47985605ad.234.2025.03.01.09.46.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 01 Mar 2025 09:46:15 -0800 (PST) From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: Anand Jain , "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" , fstests@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, djwong@kernel.org, zlang@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 4/5] check,common/config: Add support for central fsconfig In-Reply-To: <4c951390-400a-48ce-824c-f075a37496a9@oracle.com> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 23:00:17 +0530 Message-ID: <87mse4hd5i.fsf@gmail.com> References: <9a6764237b900f40e563d8dee2853f1430245b74.1736496620.git.nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com> <4c951390-400a-48ce-824c-f075a37496a9@oracle.com> 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=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Anand Jain writes: > On 10/1/25 17:10, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: >> This adds support to pick and use any existing FS config from >> configs//. e.g. >> >> configs/xfs/1k >> configs/xfs/4k >> configs/ext4/4k >> configs/ext4/64k >> >> This should help us maintain and test different fs test >> configurations from a central place. We also hope that >> this will be useful for both developers and testers to >> look into what is being actively maintained and tested >> by FS Maintainers. >> >> When we will have fsconfigs set, then will be another subdirectory created >> in results/
. For example let's look at the following: >> >> The directory tree structure on running >> sudo ./check -q 2 -R xunit-quiet -c xfs/4k,configs/xfs/1k selftest/001 selftest/007 >> > > > The -c option check makes sense to me. Is it possible to get this > feature implemented first while the -q option is still under discussion? Hi Anand, Thanks for trying the patches. The design of -c option is still under discussion [1]. But it will be helpful if you could help us understand your reasons for finding -c option useful :) [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/Z55RXUKB5O5l8QjM@li-dc0c254c-257c-11b2-a85c-98b6c1322444.ibm.com/ > > That said, I have a suggestion for the -c option— > Global config variables should be overridden by file system-specific > config files. > > For example, if configs/localhost.config contains: > > MKFS_OPTIONS="--sectorsize 64K" > > but configs//some_config sets: > > MKFS_OPTIONS="" > > then the value from configs//some_config should take priority. > > I ran some tests with btrfs, and I don’t see this behavior happening yet. I think that was intentional. I guess the reasoning was, we don't want to break use cases for folks who still wanted to use local.config file option. However, in the new proposed design [2] we are thinking of having 1 large config per filesystem. e.g. configs/btrfs/config.btrfs which will define all of the relevant sections e.g. btrfs_4k, btrfs_64k, ... Then on invokking "make", it will generate a single large fs config file i.e. configs/.all-sections-configs which will club all filesystems section configs together. Now when someone invokes check script with different -s options, it will first look into local.config file, if local.config not found, then it will look into configs/.all-sections-configs to get the relevant section defines. This hopefully should address all the other concerns which were raised on the current central fs config design. [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/87plj0hp7e.fsf@gmail.com/ -ritesh > > Thanks, Anand