From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51992 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725977AbfBHGG0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 01:06:26 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 01:06:20 -0500 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] xfs: stable fixes for v4.19.y Message-ID: <20190208060620.GA31898@sasha-vm> References: <20190204165427.23607-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20190205220655.GF14116@dastard> <20190206040559.GA4119@sasha-vm> <20190206215454.GG14116@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190206215454.GG14116@dastard> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Dave Chinner 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 Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 08:54:54AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >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... Sure! Below are the various configs this was run against. There were multiple runs over 48+ hours and no regressions from a 4.14.17 baseline were observed. [default] TEST_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p1 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/nvme0n1p2" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r) MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=1,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/nve0n1p3 FSTYP=xfs [default] TEST_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p1 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/nvme0n1p2" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r) MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p3 FSTYP=xfs [default] TEST_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p1 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/nvme0n1p2" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r) MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, -b size=1024,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p3 FSTYP=xfs [default] TEST_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p1 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/nvme0n1p2" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r) MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=0,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p3 FSTYP=xfs [default] TEST_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p1 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/nvme0n1p2" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r) MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=0,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0, -b size=512,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1p3 FSTYP=xfs [default_pmem] TEST_DEV=/dev/pmem0 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/pmem1" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r)-pmem MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=1,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/pmem2 FSTYP=xfs [default_pmem] TEST_DEV=/dev/pmem0 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/pmem1" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r)-pmem MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/pmem2 FSTYP=xfs [default_pmem] TEST_DEV=/dev/pmem0 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/pmem1" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r)-pmem MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, -b size=1024,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/pmem2 FSTYP=xfs [default_pmem] TEST_DEV=/dev/pmem0 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/pmem1" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r)-pmem MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=0,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/pmem2 FSTYP=xfs [default_pmem] TEST_DEV=/dev/pmem0 TEST_DIR=/media/test SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/pmem1" SCRATCH_MNT=/media/scratch RESULT_BASE=$PWD/results/$HOST/$(uname -r)-pmem MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=0,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0, -b size=512,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/pmem2 FSTYP=xfs -- Thanks, Sasha