On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:28 AM Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein <amir7...@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.
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
