From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:60942 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750707AbdAXRaa (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:30:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:30:27 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/122: reduce xfs_dsb_t size Message-ID: <20170124173027.GA30053@infradead.org> References: <20170124170819.GP14033@birch.djwong.org> <20170124170930.GA24572@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , Eryu Guan , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:11:35AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Philosophically (I'm good at that) how do we handle tests like this > that really only work on the latest version of the code, but don't > actually indicate a bug if it fails on something older? That might be another argument for doing the smaller than check that Darrick suggested. Or an argument for simply stopping to check xfs_dsb, it's growing constantly. Checking the offsets of known fields IFF present wold seem more useful.