From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 E5E1115CD74 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729250888; cv=none; b=H52KTlWIkuED5yThaZ1saDl7TE44xKX9ZyBPJ/drLh2DPSrc0W0naHxOZKei24MxO0s6o/JcLNXGZfYjIx6/7KaGW8KVHmvbCpz+MC9cD1kHhJpDivcrNWhAAlN/rzKpdpGkgrAaL2iYQNrjejRghZxwmfuhbXZjbYGbYQWPVqM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729250888; c=relaxed/simple; bh=APXrs3esdRgPpQFhjqhz/l9QUxnw2e/Gn3g622dLyeQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gi3p/ApV3l4dKx4Rmc9BQuQZMPaW9KGnjgQtWkJGN3MYaIHHaLjGdHClD0D9ytmH5ArYnW8YKxtYNkGilkiV0+kisJpIJT5ySQOD5nybr300KmMleOUH+zdbw80+6GMJOV6M5f2oEe9guN8DRsX2y1IYIFMgpUPwSod/wGlrmoc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=dWblv6Gi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="dWblv6Gi" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1729250885; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yIro8LpypAVLSQN//fSUHzbeTiWgPoNF4Sx4A3zzrCM=; b=dWblv6GiOY63Oxwic4nnnrLrOFxJzqtqV1D7I4ddImTXAeGDxLcTKliTm4y+dJ2Neg56/a Pa3HZvnEAcsnPW9HFgyS2QIIEiDJeXm11j8hfOirnp+T8guSFeTVlcaGuYlzxs0EMbcPz/ d/HqcsPWs1P+mWvVMBHSCvC/pjX105s= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-582-u3RRG9iWOtqrZzO90X1NAg-1; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:28:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: u3RRG9iWOtqrZzO90X1NAg-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0272419560AF; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (unknown [10.22.64.30]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03F6419560AD; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:28:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:29:22 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests Message-ID: References: <20241017163405.173062-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20241018050909.GA19831@lst.de> 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: <20241018050909.GA19831@lst.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 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. Brian