From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56748 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726880AbfBIRxq (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2019 12:53:46 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 12:53:44 -0500 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] xfs: stable fixes for v4.19.y Message-ID: <20190209175344.GA69686@sasha-vm> References: <20190204165427.23607-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20190205220655.GF14116@dastard> <20190206040559.GA4119@sasha-vm> <20190206215454.GG14116@dastard> <20190208060620.GA31898@sasha-vm> <20190208212921.GO14116@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190208212921.GO14116@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 Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 08:29:21AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:06:20AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: >> 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. > >Thanks, Sasha. As an ongoing thing, I reckon a "grep _OPTIONS >" (catches both mkfs and mount options) would be >sufficient as a summary of what was tested in the series >decription... Will do. -- Thanks, Sasha