Re: [PATCH 6/6] xfs: don't run tests that require v4 file systems when not supported

Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-10T04:14:07Z

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 08:56:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > ---
> > common/xfs | 10 ++++++++++
> > tests/xfs/002 | 1 +
>
> Looks fine to me.
>
> > tests/xfs/045 | 1 +
>
> xfs_db can change uuids on v5 filesystems now, so we don't nee the
> -mcrc=0 in this test.

Ok, I'll look into that.

> Looks fine to me.
>
> > tests/xfs/148 | 2 ++
>
> I wonder if we could rewrite this test to use either the xfs_db write -d
> command on dirents or attrs directly; or the link/attrset commands,
> since AFAICT the dir/attr code doesn't itself run namecheck when
> creating entries/attrs.

Can I leave that to you? :)

> > tests/xfs/158 | 1 +
> > tests/xfs/160 | 1 +
>
> inobtcount and bigtime are new features, maybe these two tests should
> lose the clause that checks that we can't upgrade a V4 filesystem?

I'll take a look.

> > tests/xfs/194 | 2 ++
>
> Not sure why this one is fixated on $pagesize/8. Was that a requirement
> to induce an error? Or would this work just as well on a 1k fsblock fs?
>
> (Eric?)

I can check if it could be made to work on $pagesize/4, but I'll
need to defer to Eric if that even makes sense.

> > tests/xfs/513 | 1 +
>
> I think we should split this into separate tests for V4/V5 options and
> only _require_xfs_nocrc the one with V4 options, because I wouldn't want
> to stop testing V5 codepaths simply because someone turned off V4
> support in the kernle.

Ok.

> > tests/xfs/526 | 1 +
>
> I'm at a loss on this one -- what it does is useful, but there aren't
> any V5 mkfs options that conflict as nicely as crc=0 does.

Yes, I tried to look for conflicting options, but I couldn't find
anything. Maybe we'll grow some before the v4 support is retired
for real :)