Re: [PATCH 0/2] fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:29:22AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:09:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:34:03PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > I believe you reproduced a problem with your customized realtime variant
> > > of the initial test. I've not been able to reproduce any test failures
> > > with patch 2 here, though I have tried to streamline the test a bit to
> > > reduce unnecessary bits (patch 1 still reproduces the original
> > > problems). I also don't tend to test much with rt, so it's possible my
> > > config is off somehow or another. Otherwise I _think_ I've included the
> > > necessary changes for rt support in the test itself.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts? I'd like to figure out what might be going on there before
> > > this should land..
> > 
> > Darrick mentioned that was just with his rt group patchset, which
> > make sense as we don't have per-group metadata without that.
> > 
> 
> Ah, that would explain it then.
> 
> > Anyway, the series looks good to me, and I think it supersedes my
> > more targeted hand crafted reproducer.
> > 
> 
> Ok, thanks. It would be nice if anybody who knows more about the rt
> group stuff could give the rt test a quick whirl and just confirm it's
> at least still effective in that known broken case after my tweaks.
> Otherwise I'll wait on any feedback on the code/test itself... thanks.

Perplexingly, I tried this out on the test fleet last night and got zero
failures except for torvalds TOT.

Oh, I don't have any recoveryloop VMs that also have rt enabled, maybe
that's why 610 didn't pop anywhere.

--D

> Brian
>