| Message ID | 20240731111804.1161524-1-nilay@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [blktests] loop/011: skip if running on kernel older than v6.10 | expand |
Hi! > The loop/011 is regression test for kernel commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: > Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not supported") which requires > minimum kernel version 6.10. So running this test on kernel version > older than v6.10 would FAIL. This patch ensures that we skip running > loop/011 if kernel version is older than v6.10. The patch has been backported to 6.9 stable as well. > Signed-off-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com> > --- > tests/loop/011 | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/tests/loop/011 b/tests/loop/011 > index 35eb39b..b674dd7 100755 > --- a/tests/loop/011 > +++ b/tests/loop/011 > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > DESCRIPTION="Make sure unsupported backing file fallocate does not fill dmesg with errors" > > requires() { > + _have_kver 6 10 > _have_program mkfs.ext2 > } > > -- > 2.45.2 >
On Jul 31, 2024 / 13:23, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! > > The loop/011 is regression test for kernel commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: > > Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not supported") which requires > > minimum kernel version 6.10. So running this test on kernel version > > older than v6.10 would FAIL. This patch ensures that we skip running > > loop/011 if kernel version is older than v6.10. > > The patch has been backported to 6.9 stable as well. Hi Cyril, Nilay, According to www.kernel.org, the 6.9 stable branch is already EOL. Is it planned to backport the kernel fix to other longterm branches?
On 7/31/24 17:31, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote: > On Jul 31, 2024 / 13:23, Cyril Hrubis wrote: >> Hi! >>> The loop/011 is regression test for kernel commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: >>> Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not supported") which requires >>> minimum kernel version 6.10. So running this test on kernel version >>> older than v6.10 would FAIL. This patch ensures that we skip running >>> loop/011 if kernel version is older than v6.10. >> >> The patch has been backported to 6.9 stable as well. > > Hi Cyril, Nilay, > > According to www.kernel.org, the 6.9 stable branch is already EOL. Is it planned > to backport the kernel fix to other longterm branches? I just checked this commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not supported") hasn't been backported to any of the longterm stable kernel yet. However I don't know if there's any plan to backport it on longterm stable kernel. Maybe, Cyril should know about it? If not planned for backport on longterm stable kernel then we may consider the proposed changes in loop/011 as-is. Thanks, --Nilay
Hi! > > According to www.kernel.org, the 6.9 stable branch is already EOL. Is it planned > > to backport the kernel fix to other longterm branches? > I just checked this commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard > if not supported") hasn't been backported to any of the longterm stable kernel yet. > However I don't know if there's any plan to backport it on longterm stable kernel. The patch will not apply into older branches since the in kernel API did change, so I suppose that nobody will invest into rewriting the patch since it's mostly cosmetic. > Maybe, Cyril should know about it? > > If not planned for backport on longterm stable kernel then we may consider the > proposed changes in loop/011 as-is. That's strange, I got an email shortly after the patch got into mailinine about the backport: Subject: Patch "loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not supported" has been added to the 6.9-stable tree Reply-To: stable@vger.kernel.org This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not supported to the 6.9-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: loop-disable-fallocate-zero-and-discard-if-not-suppo.patch and it can be found in the queue-6.9 subdirectory. If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it. commit 6718aa792b7d297ece53024a138ea679e8153ea6 Author: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> Date: Thu Jun 13 18:38:17 2024 +0200 loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not supported
Hi Shinichiro, On 7/31/24 18:16, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! >>> According to www.kernel.org, the 6.9 stable branch is already EOL. Is it planned >>> to backport the kernel fix to other longterm branches? >> I just checked this commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard >> if not supported") hasn't been backported to any of the longterm stable kernel yet. >> However I don't know if there's any plan to backport it on longterm stable kernel. > > The patch will not apply into older branches since the in kernel API did > change, so I suppose that nobody will invest into rewriting the patch > since it's mostly cosmetic. > This commit 5f75e081ab5c has been backported to kernel v6.9.11 and per the above comment from Cyril, this commit shall not be backported further to any other longterm kernel. So is it reasonable to assume that this test would fail on kernel older than v6.9.11? And if this is true then how about rewriting the patch as below ? diff --git a/tests/loop/011 b/tests/loop/011 index 35eb39b..a454848 100755 --- a/tests/loop/011 +++ b/tests/loop/011 @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ DESCRIPTION="Make sure unsupported backing file fallocate does not fill dmesg with errors" requires() { + _have_kver 6 9 11 _have_program mkfs.ext2 } Thanks, --Nilay
On Jul 31, 2024 / 19:29, Nilay Shroff wrote: > Hi Shinichiro, > > On 7/31/24 18:16, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > > Hi! > >>> According to www.kernel.org, the 6.9 stable branch is already EOL. Is it planned > >>> to backport the kernel fix to other longterm branches? > >> I just checked this commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard > >> if not supported") hasn't been backported to any of the longterm stable kernel yet. > >> However I don't know if there's any plan to backport it on longterm stable kernel. > > > > The patch will not apply into older branches since the in kernel API did > > change, so I suppose that nobody will invest into rewriting the patch > > since it's mostly cosmetic. > > > > This commit 5f75e081ab5c has been backported to kernel v6.9.11 and per the above > comment from Cyril, this commit shall not be backported further to any other longterm > kernel. > > So is it reasonable to assume that this test would fail on kernel older than v6.9.11? I have the same guess. > And if this is true then how about rewriting the patch as below ? > > diff --git a/tests/loop/011 b/tests/loop/011 > index 35eb39b..a454848 100755 > --- a/tests/loop/011 > +++ b/tests/loop/011 > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > DESCRIPTION="Make sure unsupported backing file fallocate does not fill dmesg with errors" > > requires() { > + _have_kver 6 9 11 > _have_program mkfs.ext2 > } I think this change is reasonable. Would you repost the patch?
On 8/1/24 11:57, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote: > On Jul 31, 2024 / 19:29, Nilay Shroff wrote: >> Hi Shinichiro, >> >> On 7/31/24 18:16, Cyril Hrubis wrote: >>> Hi! >>>>> According to www.kernel.org, the 6.9 stable branch is already EOL. Is it planned >>>>> to backport the kernel fix to other longterm branches? >>>> I just checked this commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard >>>> if not supported") hasn't been backported to any of the longterm stable kernel yet. >>>> However I don't know if there's any plan to backport it on longterm stable kernel. >>> >>> The patch will not apply into older branches since the in kernel API did >>> change, so I suppose that nobody will invest into rewriting the patch >>> since it's mostly cosmetic. >>> >> >> This commit 5f75e081ab5c has been backported to kernel v6.9.11 and per the above >> comment from Cyril, this commit shall not be backported further to any other longterm >> kernel. >> >> So is it reasonable to assume that this test would fail on kernel older than v6.9.11? > > I have the same guess. > >> And if this is true then how about rewriting the patch as below ? >> >> diff --git a/tests/loop/011 b/tests/loop/011 >> index 35eb39b..a454848 100755 >> --- a/tests/loop/011 >> +++ b/tests/loop/011 >> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ >> DESCRIPTION="Make sure unsupported backing file fallocate does not fill dmesg with errors" >> >> requires() { >> + _have_kver 6 9 11 >> _have_program mkfs.ext2 >> } > > I think this change is reasonable. Would you repost the patch? Sure, I will send another patch. Thanks, --Nilay
diff --git a/tests/loop/011 b/tests/loop/011 index 35eb39b..b674dd7 100755 --- a/tests/loop/011 +++ b/tests/loop/011 @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ DESCRIPTION="Make sure unsupported backing file fallocate does not fill dmesg with errors" requires() { + _have_kver 6 10 _have_program mkfs.ext2 }
The loop/011 is regression test for kernel commit 5f75e081ab5c ("loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not supported") which requires minimum kernel version 6.10. So running this test on kernel version older than v6.10 would FAIL. This patch ensures that we skip running loop/011 if kernel version is older than v6.10. Signed-off-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com> --- tests/loop/011 | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)