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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 CBC29C4708F for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:33:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E6461263 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:33:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233056AbhFAIfP (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 04:35:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57604 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232963AbhFAIfP (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 04:35:15 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20F3DC061574 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id k22so14392143ioa.9 for ; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 01:33:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YXQc+UDCRyxqXfYtTPQ+nYk5cOdFPAwYMJviG8NaLM8=; b=fbmzyYWFGJPtF23ndNY+YSVH3eF6h9I8hgfnj+Y8S1cZcsf8R9v1ePxQkjj0JZEwEY A5WlR5eAI8nI2qXpMFRRltA8e/MEaYIzp0x9kcAgas2eOZMii4j+/ilrpowpo8NkblDH rLZQZcypldj15BBp5ojTZTqe0Z9kwjVW2c7X8RTG7KHMDaGBrSF7UeZavOt1PoHSeGwh C8SsRMlEOlctsU7qTwD9AVwnca21wALnhW2zVjsoe1OYXWG11p8zNm88RIZ3Pwrvveol UumFydNRWhzSIeGTBMG6SGbqkMtd8Mk4gv+HwmeDnmbVTW6BhKGH2BMO2Fiznx5uBCz6 6tZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YXQc+UDCRyxqXfYtTPQ+nYk5cOdFPAwYMJviG8NaLM8=; b=HmmbsNsUHfqigOgS9RGarlcndI6EEeWXttSzDcvg+Iwhosv6rbQCEJKbyFCbpHrWVN bWuFBEVmbtLe0H5Zo2dw3MLfQGXfEYzDSRF6H47druoJL6q+130oqPuIHelvrD9MWAby hxFhsQxptRR8wimhTQcBs/hGcJ6K0GUEBzDKO9TBoIKksDhQNzdxnN1HmjMeEN7kAowG qrSdG9J2dYJWTDsv5Vqf3iXn6893f8STqA8CYQktZx58hitLkAIQa23bNODBLUirPws7 hBiYyTYtafaO7yYPbu4IqfOj4qnyNiNkacVXjmTPW6LP4G7LFrHoX1CFfBMrjEmo8Pn4 vYpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Wr5Jbx5Gp13PyAL+d9TbcDkxpxI1qOFAOP+HPoGGq0EjI+X5Z lYC/VBVMaSkdDvyAKtnPZ989patBDu9o4SZCE2g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyL2knDcvx7EngEjpuBLUwQU1NTL4VeYkeORr6gMrF25zYGUitZfnoooJSITYZKW6wHo6UgOmJC+xEvnW/kWSM= X-Received: by 2002:a02:6d6c:: with SMTP id e44mr24219651jaf.81.1622536412372; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 01:33:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210527174547.109269-1-uvv.mail@gmail.com> <20210527174547.109269-3-uvv.mail@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Amir Goldstein Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:33:21 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ovl: do not set overlay.opaque for new directories To: "Yurkov, Vyacheslav" Cc: Vyacheslav Yurkov , Miklos Szeredi , overlayfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:54 AM Yurkov, Vyacheslav wrote: > > Hi Amir, > Thanks again for the review and a heads-up about the tests. I was not aware they exist. > > It took me some time to set them up due to really peculiar Makefile, but I now even have a yocto recipe to build them (will file it upstream later). > > The latest master and my v3 both report the same results: > Failures: overlay/005 overlay/065 overlay/075 > Failed 3 of 93 tests > (The full log is attached) > > I assume the failures come due to my specific configuration, but since master and v3 issue the same results I should be fine here. Maybe. Failure of overlay/075 on master is known. Failure of overlay/065 on master was fixed by xfstests commit * 6159ae7f - overlay/065: Adapt test to relaxed rules so you may want to update your xfstests copy. Failure of overlay/005 is not familiar to me and the attached log is missing all the output of the test - it just has the summary. Worst yet, according to summary, all those test do not run in your setup: Not run: overlay/001 overlay/004 overlay/008 overlay/015 overlay/020 overlay/021 overlay/025 overlay/032 overlay/045 overlay/046 overlay/056 overlay/064 overlay/100 overlay/101 overlay/102 overlay/103 overlay/104 overlay/105 overlay/106 overlay/107 overlay/108 overlay/109 overlay/110 overlay/111 overlay/112 overlay/113 overlay/114 overlay/115 overlay/116 overlay/117 Can you provide the full log to understand the reason or figure it out yourself and fix this. If you are running a special setup that is fine, it doesn't have to run all the test (as long as you know why), but in order to verify that your patches did not break other setups, you need to test with a common setup where all the above tests run and pass, short of overlay/075 which is a known upstream issue. > > v2 indeed caused a few more failures on top of that: > Failures: overlay/005 overlay/065 overlay/070 overlay/071 overlay/075 > Failed 5 of 93 tests > I'm a bit surprised that tests overlay/068 overlay/069 did not fail with v2 Maybe they did not run and you did not notice that in the report? > Could you please tell me just for my information what's the usual time frame to have my v3 mainlined? > Miklos would have to answer this question. It shouldn't take long if he agrees with the patch. Thanks, Amir.