From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 A9793612FC; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709134773; cv=none; b=EdSK5UwooDMEoqbuQRhVmJGDqf6s6r1zNkz7mFdDDfsfsd3eMawKDs7JX+Y/11gP/UGf1Op4rVwNG9hT+z2ymzzO1rqcodcxlFilL/6EO9jVI9erv4IZ72g+yVVCmE8VdEbiw9WL2VQiSvmBwkehT8KchnFo1fDU/2aFhWUhViw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709134773; c=relaxed/simple; bh=G/QBBfig6n658qCIRIUYdjBKRkyLshegXU/GT3hM7aI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dCXRwgZZqyW64qoepyGMiYnMoyQjrQ4QNGowgtJXIttrBowlfu5rmeU5cOCL1nDPJQxLtXdC9RZNupOUD1yqrUzzVfQHwm3IoRqJCFwVf8wtes2SHVRgWnMUjnrZCDVlfqdFdDfHyeRHXJ9v6WBJ2ZU5ld5LCvpEY96LRT2IstQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=tGCWzAop; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="tGCWzAop" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=5FACmNrXMsLC5ZSFfuWMjCBgOJTNUS3gd0mH93L3uS8=; b=tGCWzAopNYxYn/eVezCam2su/J 6NoJB5aaJICO9fbIbyxStwDZ0409cQwQfRlU41Mtvf+RtYce+z/9n5IipsKp3XrDo4QFFgOchDG71 nRDU9Dk9z9UWyYgaeoVjyqigxiTHSMzcYkCHcWbQJUJ6QpT69236jmL044Uy/Er8OiQiCRz2GGzVj zUaMz+canEI2f6Vq3mpMYjbjKpCexJnA2gNZTnmz82vDJmu0k//36ffaaAPMhG3R1E7leD7p/SE6i apQprFQm0wU6tnelIGd7WkcXf+Nq9QZOq5PVH5/i44bLfmQqSy+qP6jt9jvgHC9aPu8+Bf/6u0Dqs 38NVNKtQ==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rfM1p-00000009vfz-3gGY; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:39:29 +0000 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:39:29 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , 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: References: <170899915207.896550.7285890351450610430.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <170899915304.896550.17104868811908659798.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240228012704.GU6188@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: <20240228012704.GU6188@frogsfrogsfrogs> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 05:27:04PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > 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...) Well, who is going to backport changes to the on-disk format in a way that is complex enough to change strutures, and not also backport the patch to actually check the sizes? Sounds like a weird use case to optimize for.