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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514ADC4320A for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 07:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F3E60E98 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 07:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233489AbhH3HTh (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2021 03:19:37 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:55696 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232321AbhH3HTg (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2021 03:19:36 -0400 Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4717F2203F; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 07:18:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1630307921; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=k+1+88D7JPYfouQ+2DYHBEp302s0CeAhHlZ2Ein8pJ4=; b=uOCQow1uXk4tKDXvvb5JbAfqkrqEX89pEHwz0w3gPFwsFO3JUSOKPPJK+pLMiezAq+qDo+ J+RvaJ/KE+oLjwnSJxRX98ufscr5DcJFJzFW9OeRukAEuBwrMg5hQlEF4VjmIMlxl4MbQ7 5VRpC5nSXRddCxvxq+1tAxTr10mKw7M= Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CD461365E; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 07:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id yTh0O1CGLGHwFAAAGKfGzw (envelope-from ); Mon, 30 Aug 2021 07:18:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add test for rename exchange behavior between subvolumes To: fdmanana@gmail.com Cc: fstests , linux-btrfs References: <20210819131456.304721-1-nborisov@suse.com> From: Nikolay Borisov Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 10:18:40 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org > Finally, this would also be a good opportunity to test regular renames > with subvolumes too, as we had bugs and regressions in the past like > in commit 4871c1588f92c6c13f4713a7009f25f217055807 ("Btrfs: use right > root when checking for hash collision > "), and never got any test cases for them. What specific tests do you have in mind? Ordinary renames of files within a subvolume are already tested by merit of generic geneirc/02[345]. The test in the patch you cited is basically renaming a subvolume within the same subvolume, that's easy enough.