Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] generic: copy_file_range swapfile test

[Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:12:22AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
[snip]
> > 
> > > Do you think that should there be a different policy w.r.t timing of
> > > merging xfstests tests that fail on upstream kernel?
> > 
> > That's my opinion, and generic/484 is the best argument for why we
> > should wait.  Other people may have other opinions though, and I have
> > a workaround, so I don't feel super-strong about it.  (generic/454 is
> > now the second test in my global exclude file.  :-)
> 
> I don't see generic/454 failing with ext4 (I'm testing with default
> mkfs/mount options, kernel is 5.2-rc2). But IMHO, I think generic/454 is

Oh, I see, I think you meant generic/554 not generic/454 (thanks Darrick
for pointing that out :)

> different, it's not a targeted regression test, it's kind of generic
> test that should work for all filesystems.
> 
> > 
> > At the very *least* there should be a comment in the test that fix is
> > pending, and might not be applied yet, with a URL to the mailing list
> > discussion.  That will save effort when months (years?) go by, and the
> > fix still hasn't landed the upstream kernel....
> 
> Agreed, I've been making sure there's a comment referring to the fix or
> pending fix (e.g. only commit summary no hash ID) for such targeted
> regression tests.

And I took generic/55[34] as generic tests not targeted regression test.
But looks like it's better to reference the fixes anyway.

Amir, would you mind adding such references to generic/55[34] as well?

Thanks,
Eryu