From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 782371DDF8; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:27:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709083625; cv=none; b=mAZzbAzrebBi87l1WXqUDER5eUXC3e88iGYNdl7672KvSLpMNKPR7w22bJv2SewY5J+3/48oEo7PU1cKHf3cHF/HIf+2WvsbClhSKiaFitsty6gN2QtBDsFB0FxaOfSx9sOqjx/BoRJoInNfR1FkTANuHIbtTsHqttcWDJGQBxI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709083625; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HOEE0xujAAq2KJYPVoli/5kqsDE/deKgZtnU7b8XHpQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X5dnC8B/mqNLco9uqiP3GGzrMiyqzOkYhaGL5AH1Pmoi4EgLPE2jb1xQdHpEtJEEIykGsP6BtKvVlFbDsNmKqLsm8ircOnaPLxj/BKvfqmSsjQPXZGRkZOUqaEvdOTIOwaRiD7loxif5TfXzTKbJQw1FOlNeZwB416NffeGQTSs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OAEojhkn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="OAEojhkn" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC4F7C433F1; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:27:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1709083625; bh=HOEE0xujAAq2KJYPVoli/5kqsDE/deKgZtnU7b8XHpQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OAEojhknPzZepY+qULJtQ+R0lijU/HvW6GtqraSkMpkXyUTOeTJPmym84zzpWSz+P 2ZuBTkoFEmyFtdyw8I5pPVJGiY4E/vVqirBwWXeMBw0Al4vtbA/OKQfdQuldfGWm/M YpLX49gGROneAz7PJy/05EjJhYUr5j20Vj9+HrH8KIFwmHsZpz6HDipCz9avo2VkRu wJwm20gq0LM0AtbEZTvtZzeq+8UXUUDzT+0ygS5sXH5hwdIve8oZ1GwTW2S4W31IS8 9/6P2q4uZ1BdTPeCW6py7N6Wt8vlvmljy1XUQFtRa3iQRscSzxixAFHg+YL1Yluw8a sSEczpiVZhu/Q== Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:27:04 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: zlang@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, guan@eryu.me, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfs/122: update test to pick up rtword/suminfo ondisk unions Message-ID: <20240228012704.GU6188@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <170899915207.896550.7285890351450610430.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <170899915304.896550.17104868811908659798.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:54:41AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Can we please just kill the goddamn test? Just waiting for the > xfsprogs 6.8 resync to submit the static_asserts for libxfs that > will handle this much better. I'll be very happen when we scuttle xfs/122 finally. However, in theory it's still be useful for QA departments to make sure that xfsprogs backports (HA!) don't accidentally break things. IOWs, I advocate for _notrunning this test if xfsprogs >= 6.8 is detected, not removing it completely. Unless someone wants to chime in and say that actually, nobody backports stuff to old xfsprogs? (We don't really...) --D