From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f171.google.com (mail-pl1-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCC391F3BB2; Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739977492; cv=none; b=dbDhxBxWedY4IoBVnvkSaxaWtt8RZtwpQTM7DqOUKsjRb/XN79Oss4S4UNde7hm6VOvF54KpE6na3O5ojSPjceHy9+prtDIppgWy8IM8iGc/CpPZIR6psnOATS+tg7UKFB1djGS/c6YUTyp3w2AOTJcXmvOt78uhDiVgRZizu+Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739977492; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ljNhr3gioO5BrDd9zykPmvUpWyLxX/ZGib1/O/4tlBg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=WD6Waf4xuLbPDNpjs7Ia29zoNDQU2Fcqz/bfUfRooILGyzfCN9hkCqHREcjAlkl0SGuuNTZKadZtg4Ridse1oNgIbqstJq8l6LGtGWwt9SuuZ5fV0ehKfl9v80fPrwBKJd5kuAZuE8+Fg3HwUoWuaE+xrZc5xJM8J2nk68OXLQc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=E1J5y1H5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="E1J5y1H5" Received: by mail-pl1-f171.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2212a930001so8006645ad.0; Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:04:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1739977490; x=1740582290; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NTdD+bQIdz3RWZ4KMHlskhNWncYorBHEeG1RebeT8zs=; b=E1J5y1H5D4TXvgFNaO47qrO+b8QsQ4GL30IcigUFudaCE1FV1hmS8+BF23mAR1RSLs PhwJ5bVR4FhsReNfWVyiBbRuwgYH3pwSIRvZX12Oq2hwyLzL3m0SynOqlcgkVgtt/5IP /RAjfL6+r8zO3Z1WWfj80aW51KWTR+QzK21pZMbJYT71qk56PFNuHUdFJ/AO8vmutcTg stnlSTptLkS5hoIQyGg2IVZ1xr6lOoHZiNJGAaCNIZ18ZYVqloi+qSaDN+N87HcsIYzS oIlmveg1nUFXJY1ZNe6wQAQ9QFh4olg+hNTq9EEvOmiz9BA0IXcv5/uKgpZZDp8X8la6 fG5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1739977490; x=1740582290; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NTdD+bQIdz3RWZ4KMHlskhNWncYorBHEeG1RebeT8zs=; b=UJKiGxlhlxmehIWRzzbx6rgUPNr7K4gIEJEEJjQj+oc9hfAgjpypANjFEur+zz5RCu ezzQ2ZVzh1a5WQuQ8FFCLyymvlfobZdOVopGtEBE2Ek9nO6Mo458rjxxUm1vx3I+HSsU AG24dXYHML/DqMjY7BTcSmSFoS1RDIlAJ62k/n+dP9s//QUjnagDkjcN+3vJQDubPbS0 ysu1LBt7b81KugRQ1ciBLZwQJog+lH/kAUHVQKg+/1zU8nSc/cZjoR9fXGme/gsUS41d iABy+x7KMAmU+OzLguP9tE5kdEYz0ZFO/9w2jkwVj3TGvh8A8NhVBuncAlkDC0tLWwF+ 6vnw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUc102IZIPrKFb9Qbd/AgrnSAYq1Wa+CQVsR2hPwOBSIKHZhhvWY4DtDqxOfTwbMsqe8fUzBvyZA0nc@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCUzqHU7hd1yek++PPbHqrKwM2VHrtSfYvrTqIHlZiW/3bFGXd+acR/2QXhiYknxAsCCUdiNriFgJrhd@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxgZcLfXynHeHFdscCPqhrAwOmv7KoeLGc4PemCWnDXUPIcf7Ry 1rU3qpbsMwcLwVaXcTp0p1/iifYBMOGDIrAXmU4qpUEQQ51W5MI7 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncukyXsL8k923RrDWRKJ5WECzQXCNokr9OnSw7hAAN8lPcFx2XVdAL8pRj7SNWd 3yPVIBmd4qGdXRFz5eFr0LHnxvF/8UxoWfYzrRgkm/6lNFTbpkES5smpmwbm30bI8Lo5TeSJBwo U9MFesHkpOdAKqDSKsmHS1c14Q4wteN/TXaNGDIWcflT0ZB8MlBKbCUKI9DRSvoVhCjwPFYuN4z xts3+Ezz20TIKUKQVuMfaKAE2/LN0VhU0i0ez2yDK2DbeIdoBmU8FF11e1gWcU7c2xGendp7VFL 2ThbMRAVcNpdCzgomF63/a99tw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHgGwjUZhfDYX8Qm0YJ2oNs1GP4Gis0CwmFBq5y3bH9gBxqoItHzmVLiLnLPcxaunc4g7TZdw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d58b:b0:220:ea90:1925 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-221040ab9b3mr348915455ad.35.1739977490038; Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:04:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.120] ([49.205.33.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-220d5348f7asm106922385ad.23.2025.02.19.07.04.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:04:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <90be3350-67e5-4dec-bc65-442762f5f856@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:34:44 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] xfs: Add a testcase to check remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs To: Dave Chinner Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, ritesh.list@gmail.com, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, djwong@kernel.org, zlang@kernel.org References: <1b8a4074-ae78-4ba2-9d8a-9e5e85437df5@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US From: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/18/25 03:59, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:18:48AM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: >> On 2/14/25 03:19, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 03:30:50PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: >>>> On 2/13/25 03:17, Dave Chinner wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:39:58PM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: >>> Ok, so CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=n is the correct behaviour (known mount >>> option, invalid configuration being asked for), and it is the >>> CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=y behaviour that is broken. >> Okay, so do you find this testcase (patch 3/3 xfs: Add a testcase to check >> remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs) useful, > Not at this point in time, because xfs/189 is supposed to exercise > attr2/noattr2 mount/remount behaviour and take into account all the > weirdness of the historic mount behaviour. > > Obviously, it is not detecting that this noattr2 remount behaviour > was broken, so that test needs fixing/additions. Indeed, it's > probably important to understand why xfs/189 isn't detecting this > failure before going any further, right? Yes. Let me look into what xfs/189 does and why it isn't detecting the noattr2 remount broken behavior. Thank you for the pointer. About "Patch 1/3: xfs/539: Skip noattr2 remount option on v5 file systems" --> I wrote the patch because xfs/539 has started failing in one of fstests CI runs because RHEL 10 has started disabling xfs v4 support i.e, CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=n. Do you think modifying patch 1/3(xfs/539) in such a way that the test ignores the remount failures with noattr2 and continues the test is an appropriate idea (since the test xfs/539 only intends to check the dmesg warnings)? --NR > > IMO, it is better to fix existing tests that exercise the behaviour > in question than it is to add a new test that covers just what the > old test missed. > > -Dave. -- Nirjhar Roy Linux Kernel Developer IBM, Bangalore