All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, Koen De Wit <koen.de.wit@oracle.com>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test for atime-related mount options
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:24:18 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140214222418.GT13997@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52FE472C.8070503@sandeen.net>

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:41:16AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 2/14/14, 10:39 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:55AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> +cat /proc/mounts | grep "$SCRATCH_MNT" | grep relatime >> $seqres.full
> >>> +[ $? -ne 0 ] && echo "The relatime mount option should be the default."
> >>
> >> Ok, I guess "relatime" in /proc/mounts is from core vfs code and
> >> should be there for the foreseeable future, so seems ok.
> >>
> >> But - relatime was added in v2.6.20, and made default in 2.6.30.  So
> >> testing older kernels may not go as expected; it'd probably be best to
> >> catch situations where relatime isn't available (< 2.6.20) or not
> >> default (< 2.6.30), by explicitly mounting with relatime, and skipping
> >> relatime/strictatime tests if that fails?
> > 
> > Is there some consensus what's the lowest kernel version to be supported
> > by xfstests? 2.6.32 is the lowest base for kernels in use today, so
> > worrying about anything older does not seem necessary.
> > 
> 
> I don't know that it's been discussed - selfishly, I know our QE uses
> xfstests on RHEL5, which is 2.6.18-based.

Sure, but they can just add the test to a "rhel5-expunged" file and
they don't have to care about tests that won't work on RHEL 5 or
other older kernels. Or to send patches to add "_requires_relatime"
so that it automatically does the right thing for older kernels.

Ultimately, upstream developers can't do all the work necessary to
support distros - that's why the distros have their own engineers
and QE to make sure the upstream code works correctly when they
backport it. xfstests is no different. ;)

IOWs, if someone wants to run a modern test suite on a 7 year old
distro, then they need to make sure that the test suite does the
right thing for their distro. We'll take the patches that make it
work, but we can't expect upstream developers to know what old
distros require, let alone test and make stuff work on them...

Just my 2c worth.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Koen De Wit <koen.de.wit@oracle.com>,
	dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test for atime-related mount options
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:24:18 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140214222418.GT13997@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52FE472C.8070503@sandeen.net>

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:41:16AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 2/14/14, 10:39 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:55AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> +cat /proc/mounts | grep "$SCRATCH_MNT" | grep relatime >> $seqres.full
> >>> +[ $? -ne 0 ] && echo "The relatime mount option should be the default."
> >>
> >> Ok, I guess "relatime" in /proc/mounts is from core vfs code and
> >> should be there for the foreseeable future, so seems ok.
> >>
> >> But - relatime was added in v2.6.20, and made default in 2.6.30.  So
> >> testing older kernels may not go as expected; it'd probably be best to
> >> catch situations where relatime isn't available (< 2.6.20) or not
> >> default (< 2.6.30), by explicitly mounting with relatime, and skipping
> >> relatime/strictatime tests if that fails?
> > 
> > Is there some consensus what's the lowest kernel version to be supported
> > by xfstests? 2.6.32 is the lowest base for kernels in use today, so
> > worrying about anything older does not seem necessary.
> > 
> 
> I don't know that it's been discussed - selfishly, I know our QE uses
> xfstests on RHEL5, which is 2.6.18-based.

Sure, but they can just add the test to a "rhel5-expunged" file and
they don't have to care about tests that won't work on RHEL 5 or
other older kernels. Or to send patches to add "_requires_relatime"
so that it automatically does the right thing for older kernels.

Ultimately, upstream developers can't do all the work necessary to
support distros - that's why the distros have their own engineers
and QE to make sure the upstream code works correctly when they
backport it. xfstests is no different. ;)

IOWs, if someone wants to run a modern test suite on a 7 year old
distro, then they need to make sure that the test suite does the
right thing for their distro. We'll take the patches that make it
work, but we can't expect upstream developers to know what old
distros require, let alone test and make stuff work on them...

Just my 2c worth.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-02-14 22:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-13 15:23 [PATCH] xfstests: test for atime-related mount options Koen De Wit
2014-02-13 15:23 ` Koen De Wit
2014-02-13 16:42 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-13 16:42   ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-14 16:39   ` David Sterba
2014-02-14 16:39     ` David Sterba
2014-02-14 16:41     ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-14 16:41       ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-14 16:53       ` David Sterba
2014-02-14 16:53         ` David Sterba
2014-02-14 22:24       ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2014-02-14 22:24         ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-14 23:48         ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-14 23:48           ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-15  1:39           ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-15  1:39             ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-15  3:02             ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-15  3:02               ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-15 22:29               ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-15 22:29                 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-17 20:25   ` Koen De Wit
2014-02-17 20:25     ` Koen De Wit

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=20140214222418.GT13997@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=koen.de.wit@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.