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 B3C4223AB98; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:30:29 +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=1749562231; cv=none; b=Wq/81jPWN+XAfb7qDHXHzgx+65o3Noo8fgQKNF4xbjad0xER64sEoQZiOeJjZgaCKCg7mcmOm14u9kBVwzefQm8NrgQvV/w0RhoIoj1DlF1+PebJ1bBRSnHq2WeSqzfUVxyFsic6mGHgHdq7/VjJJue7+jF4CdA6ccIJRrUXRzc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749562231; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j72cNm8s8BmJR2yvP9N6+eHhMx4qyILJpk302T4ObgY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AeLxsvIV/Qjz71E9uSka6TcipQWrd0wLMf7TY6iUz3l4VdLk7StU1zHSoaUT8GiVwvnb+vdRikqLpTtPI4ZF8I1oT70sKKniUZNfR/h9uVxXAUfN2xutjGB0Fzz+qRsyZldNBzBbzOh97G4SPwPqLMBEWEdlXBcu1KO/l/nixVc= 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=rerNKwhY; 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="rerNKwhY" 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=GcbjZKDHfWzF4Hztsbds8tFXOAXOwUhPwJriLCPNAsA=; b=rerNKwhY6cYVBgVq/mcdEaviHF T9VsFX+uRspOI7OnRjqZgfBd7m4bKGvsbou3oaDt+D/0AaycXXsIkRa9KXeXjunGpQqyrMQtI5ZYS 116OQpYPMbfiBB4CMqR9FWiP+pdMPQQi7VR8e7jb6VwYwV1TkSBXrCG0+1EHom6o0kw6zI9z8bPbW 47vTBzs6vNbvM+Vju65uUPUMEEOK75kYSxXox+V8nXWy5bB7ki/GGUkIom76kW46SEUQFZ0RkhpbS gPiHlQGjnLygStCc1PKNEeiKQDjob7VrrAVOwuaO2OzfnStz3IEUqE2n+4gM1a0qpSPzWaGF2/xGC ZLFrdfOg==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uOz3d-00000006ySA-1UMn; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:30:29 +0000 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 06:30:29 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] xfs: error tag to force zeroing on debug kernels Message-ID: References: <20250605173357.579720-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20250605173357.579720-8-bfoster@redhat.com> 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: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 08:26:45AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > Well that is kind of the question.. ;) My preference was to either add > something to fstests to enable select errortags by default on every > mount (or do the same in-kernel via XFS_DEBUG[_ERRTAGS] or some such) > over just creating a one-off test that runs fsx or whatever with this > error tag turned on. [1]. > > That said, I wouldn't be opposed to just doing both if folks prefer > that. It just bugs me to add yet another test that only runs a specific > fsx test when we get much more coverage by running the full suite of > tests. IOW, whenever somebody is testing a kernel that would actually > run a custom test (XFS_DEBUG plus specific errortag support), we could > in theory be running the whole suite with the same errortag turned on > (albeit perhaps at a lesser frequency than a custom test would use). So > from that perspective I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to do > both. > > So any thoughts from anyone on a custom test vs. enabling errortag > defaults (via fstests or kernel) vs. some combination of both? I definitively like a targeted test to exercise it. If you want additional knows to turn on error tags that's probably fine if it works out. I'm worried about adding more flags to xfstests because it makes it really hard to figure out what runs are need for good test coverage.