On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:28 AM Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein amir73il@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is a clear policy about being friendly to testing less that master kernels in xfstest (Eryu?), but IMO we should try to accommodate this use case, because it is in the best interest of everyone that stable kernel will be regularly tested with xfstests with as little noisy failures as possible.
I think what makes this one particularly hard is that there are most likely people that do care about the failure on older kernels being reported and would rather backport the kernel changes into their product kernels to have them behave sanely.
Getting back to the thread before it diverged into the backport option.
The test used to detect kernel support and be skipped automatically on old kernel and now the test fails because the kernel knob and test for it were removed.
I perceive that as a regression to the test. I don't mind waiting for fsinfo() to fix this regression, as long as fsinfo() is going to be backported to stable kernel 5.4???
Deepa,
You added this warning: pr_warn("Mounted %s file system at %s supports timestamps until ... along with timestamp clamping
I suggest that you implement kernel support check based on grepping for this warning after loop mounting an ext2 test image. A bit over the top and ugly, but the test should be reliable and mkfs.ext2 is probably available in all xfstest deployments.
xfs/049 makes use of an ext2 loop mount, so your test won't be the first one to use ext2 for testing other fs.
When kernel gets fsinfo() the test for kernel support can be improved to using fsinfo() before doing the ext2 loop mount hack.
Thanks, Amir.