public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com" <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
To: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
Cc: "ltp@lists.linux.it" <ltp@lists.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] statx04: Re-add BTRFS version check
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 02:15:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <619708EC.6090305@fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211118112900.15757-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com>

Hi Richard
> Removing this was a step too far. This causes regressions on products
> where there is now no chance of a backport.

Do you mean that your distribution based on older kernel ie 4.11
supports statx syscall but btrfs missed the btrfs patch? Also this
distribution doesn't update and so have no choice to backport.
> This is different from the
> other version checks which are for much newer kernels. 
IMO, distribution based on older kernel 4.11 still can make ext2 ext4
xfs supports statx because the backport looks not diffcult. So, I don't
think this is a difference. It depends on kernel users worked on this
distirbution whether have this requirement.
Also there could be differences in the difficulty of a backport.
I see xfs/btrfs code, it only fills the attributes field of stat
struture by parsing inode flags.

If you must add this check on suse distribution, I guess you just add
this version check for suse distribution. For centos7,8, neither of them
supports btrfs, but I don't know other distribution situation ie unbuntu.

Maybe you can just add suse detection in lib/tst_kvercmp.c.

Just my personal thought.

Best Regards
Yang Xu

> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Palethorpe<rpalethorpe@suse.com>
> Cc: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
> ---
> 
> Note that I am still very much against new version checks if there is
> a high chance of backports. We should leave long established checks
> alone however.
> 
>   testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx04.c | 3 +++
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx04.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx04.c
> index 180c61bf9..b5ca0586a 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx04.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx04.c
> @@ -182,6 +182,9 @@ static void caid_flags_setup(void)
> 
>   static void setup(void)
>   {
> +	if (!strcmp(tst_device->fs_type, "btrfs")&&  tst_kvercmp(4, 13, 0)<  0)
> +		tst_brk(TCONF, "Btrfs statx() supported since 4.13");
> +
>   	SAFE_MKDIR(TESTDIR_FLAGGED, 0777);
>   	SAFE_MKDIR(TESTDIR_UNFLAGGED, 0777);
> 

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-19  2:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-18 11:29 [LTP] [PATCH] statx04: Re-add BTRFS version check Richard Palethorpe via ltp
2021-11-19  2:15 ` xuyang2018.jy [this message]
2021-11-22 13:30   ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-11-23 11:16     ` Richard Palethorpe
2021-11-23 11:31       ` Cyril Hrubis

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=619708EC.6090305@fujitsu.com \
    --to=xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=rpalethorpe@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox