lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] xfs: always free inline data before resetting inode fork during ifree
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 06:12:23PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:05:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:30:06PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >
> > > This is actually something I want maintainers to dictate. What sort of
> > > testing would make the XFS folks happy here? Right now I'm doing
> > > "./check 'xfs/*'" with xfstests. Is it sufficient? Anything else you'd like to see?
> >
> > ... and you're doing it wrong. This is precisely why being able
> > to discover /exactly/ what you are testing and being able to browse
> > the test results so we can find out if tests passed when a user
> > reports a bug on a stable kernel.
> >
> > The way you are running fstests skips more than half the test suite
> > It also runs tests that are considered dangerous because they are
> > likely to cause the test run to fail in some way (i.e. trigger an
> > oops, hang the machine, leave a filesystem in an unmountable state,
> > etc) and hence not complete a full pass.
> >
> > "./check -g auto" runs the full "expected to pass" regression test
> > suite for all configured test configurations. (i.e. all config
> > sections listed in the configs/<host>.config file)
>
> ie, it would be safer to expect that an algorithmic auto-selection process for
> fixes for stable kernels should have direct input and involvement from
> subsystems for run-time testing and simply guessing or assuming won't suffice.
>
> The days of just compile testing should be way over by now, and we should
> expect no less for stable kernels, *specially* if we start involving
> automation.
>
> Would a way to *start* to address this long term for XFS or other filesystems
> for auto-selection long-term be a topic worth covering / addressing at LSF/MM?
>

It would be cool to tie tests to commit numbers for things where we're making
sure a oops/hang doesn't happen again, but honestly I'm not sure it's worth the
effort. Maybe this is my upstream bias showing, but I only ever run xfstests
against something relatively close to linus, so I'm not super worried about
./check -g auto eating my box. I expect that if I run auto that everything
minus the few flakey tests are going to pass.

Also TIL about configs/<host>.config, that's pretty fucking cool. Thanks,

Josef

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-29 20:17    [W:0.120 / U:36.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site