From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE763CEBF7F for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 07:51:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3763C4FA2 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:51:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7460E3C2D8F for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:51:01 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-6.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (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 in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F165714098CC for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:51:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06FFC21B8B; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 07:50:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1727423459; h=from:from:reply-to: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=s00uUKisKPwwxfNMKre3Apet2bvgMTteWLeikJcW490=; b=UmaWEGIZYz6Ca72pwVRapnWEWhpSUl1/hXdowiuMfqlt1jXY49tdN1J50k/xdMWgrtqNzg XIGaX5i1MMCvIovo+PL0tRINv583XZhaFBkgSWriLngKpE1UlQUNf9RSTxunpzb7TbpPbD +dgi/vMdvlU4lZD5ILP/RWPw0gZJ4Zk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1727423459; h=from:from:reply-to: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=s00uUKisKPwwxfNMKre3Apet2bvgMTteWLeikJcW490=; b=L8RyVXrYZqHGtKPZvELpKc6mFTdzDCZzUn9/2Zf58HhgptutTAu6i2D1E/NDMe482PUZ5k s+3/tpDEcwkw9TDg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=UmaWEGIZ; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=L8RyVXrY DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1727423459; h=from:from:reply-to: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=s00uUKisKPwwxfNMKre3Apet2bvgMTteWLeikJcW490=; b=UmaWEGIZYz6Ca72pwVRapnWEWhpSUl1/hXdowiuMfqlt1jXY49tdN1J50k/xdMWgrtqNzg XIGaX5i1MMCvIovo+PL0tRINv583XZhaFBkgSWriLngKpE1UlQUNf9RSTxunpzb7TbpPbD +dgi/vMdvlU4lZD5ILP/RWPw0gZJ4Zk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1727423459; h=from:from:reply-to: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=s00uUKisKPwwxfNMKre3Apet2bvgMTteWLeikJcW490=; b=L8RyVXrYZqHGtKPZvELpKc6mFTdzDCZzUn9/2Zf58HhgptutTAu6i2D1E/NDMe482PUZ5k s+3/tpDEcwkw9TDg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA52C13A73; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 07:50:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id G58nOOJj9ma2KAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 27 Sep 2024 07:50:58 +0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:49:56 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Andrea Cervesato Message-ID: References: <20240924-ioctl_ficlone01_fix-v1-1-7741e2e13cc2@suse.com> <992df85a-9e44-48a4-bb89-be1be0a6a813@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <992df85a-9e44-48a4-bb89-be1be0a6a813@suse.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 06FFC21B8B X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.51 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:rdns,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Fix ioctl_ficlone on XFS without reflink support X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > >> I'm not sure if it makes sense to add this feature if we already have > >> .needs_cmd and .min_kver. It's better to keep things simple in this case. > > That will obvioiusly not work because we need to skip just a single > > filesystem not the whole test... > > > Right, so the discussion turns into what mkfs.* commands we want to > support, because we need to create a parser for each one of them and at > the moment I see mkfs.ext4 only. I would write the code "on demand" so I would implement xfs parser beacause it's needed now. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp