From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail03.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:38509 "EHLO ipmail03.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726037AbfBFVy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:54:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 08:54:54 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] xfs: stable fixes for v4.19.y Message-ID: <20190206215454.GG14116@dastard> References: <20190204165427.23607-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20190205220655.GF14116@dastard> <20190206040559.GA4119@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190206040559.GA4119@sasha-vm> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Sasha Levin Cc: Luis Chamberlain , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, hch@infradead.org On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:05:59PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:06:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >>Kernel stable team, > >> > >>here is a v2 respin of my XFS stable patches for v4.19.y. The only > >>change in this series is adding the upstream commit to the commit log, > >>and I've now also Cc'd stable@vger.kernel.org as well. No other issues > >>were spotted or raised with this series. > >> > >>Reviews, questions, or rants are greatly appreciated. > > > >Test results? > > > >The set of changes look fine themselves, but as always, the proof is > >in the testing... > > Luis noted on v1 that it passes through his oscheck test suite, and I > noted that I haven't seen any regression with the xfstests scripts I > have. > > What sort of data are you looking for beyond "we didn't see a > regression"? Nothing special, just a summary of what was tested so we have some visibility of whether the testing covered the proposed changes sufficiently. i.e. something like: Patchset was run through ltp and the fstests "auto" group with the following configs: - mkfs/mount defaults - -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1 - -b size=1k - -m crc=0 .... No new regressions were reported. Really, all I'm looking for is a bit more context for the review process - nobody remembers what configs other people test. However, it's important in reviewing a backport to know whether a backport to a fix, say, a bug in the rmap code actually got exercised by the tests on an rmap enabled filesystem... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com