| Message ID | 20250214110521.40103-1-anand.jain@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [GIT,PULL] fstests: btrfs changes for master and/or for-next v2025.02.14 | expand |
Zorro,
I wonder if you've already pulled this?
The branches in the PR below also include nitpick suggestions
and fixes that didn’t go through the reroll.
For example, commit ("fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount
option to prevent false alerts") updates a comment that’s missing
from your for-next branch.
--------------
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/226 b/tests/btrfs/226
index 359813c4f394..ce53b7d48c49 100755
--- a/tests/btrfs/226
+++ b/tests/btrfs/226
@@ -22,10 +22,8 @@ _require_xfs_io_command fpunch
_scratch_mkfs >>$seqres.full 2>&1
-# This test involves RWF_NOWAIT direct IOs, but for inodes with data
checksum,
-# btrfs will fall back to buffered IO unconditionally to prevent data
checksum
-# mimsatch, and that will break RWF_NOWAIT with -EAGAIN.
-# So here we have to go with nodatasum mount option.
+# RWF_NOWAIT works only with direct I/O and requires an inode with
nodatasum
+# to avoid checksum mismatches. Otherwise, it falls back to buffered I/O.
_scratch_mount -o nodatasum
# Test a write against COW file/extent - should fail with -EAGAIN.
Disable the
--------------
Thanks, Anand
On 14/2/25 19:05, Anand Jain wrote:
> Zorro,
>
> Please pull these branches with the Btrfs test case changes.
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next
>
> The branch [1] is good to merge directly into master. It’s been tested,
> doesn’t affect other file systems, and has RB from key Btrfs contributors.
> But if you feel we need to discuss it more before doing it, no problem—
> kindly help merge it into for-next. (It is based on the master).
>
> After that, could you pull this branch [2] into your for-next only? as it
> depends on the btrfs/333 test case, which is not yet in the master.
>
> [2] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next
>
> Thank you.
>
> PR 1:
> ====
>
> The following changes since commit 8467552f09e1672a02712653b532a84bd46ea10e:
>
> btrfs/327: add a test case to verify inline extent data read (2024-11-29 11:20:18 +0800)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
> https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next
>
> for you to fetch changes up to 429ed656f99c06f8036eff1088d93059d782add4:
>
> btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:35:16 +0800)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Filipe Manana (7):
> btrfs: skip tests incompatible with compression when compression is enabled
> btrfs/290: skip test if we are running with nodatacow mount option
> common/btrfs: add a _require_btrfs_no_nodatasum helper
> btrfs/205: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option
> btrfs: skip tests exercising data corruption and repair when using nodatasum
> btrfs/281: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option
> btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum
>
> Qu Wenruo (1):
> fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount option to prevent false alerts
>
> common/btrfs | 7 +++++++
> tests/btrfs/048 | 3 +++
> tests/btrfs/059 | 3 +++
> tests/btrfs/140 | 4 +++-
> tests/btrfs/141 | 4 +++-
> tests/btrfs/157 | 4 +++-
> tests/btrfs/158 | 4 +++-
> tests/btrfs/205 | 5 +++++
> tests/btrfs/215 | 8 +++++++-
> tests/btrfs/226 | 5 ++++-
> tests/btrfs/265 | 7 ++++++-
> tests/btrfs/266 | 7 ++++++-
> tests/btrfs/267 | 7 ++++++-
> tests/btrfs/268 | 7 ++++++-
> tests/btrfs/269 | 7 ++++++-
> tests/btrfs/281 | 2 ++
> tests/btrfs/289 | 8 ++++++--
> tests/btrfs/290 | 12 ++++++++++++
> tests/btrfs/297 | 4 ++++
> 19 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> PR 2:
> =====
>
> The following changes since commit d1adf462e4b291547014212f0d602e3d2a7c7cef:
>
> check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE (2025-02-02 21:28:37 +0800)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
> https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next
>
> for you to fetch changes up to dd2c1d2fa744aa305c88bd5910cce0e19dfb6f41:
>
> btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:37:09 +0800)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Filipe Manana (1):
> btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum
>
> tests/btrfs/333 | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:26:20AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > Zorro, > > I wonder if you've already pulled this? > > The branches in the PR below also include nitpick suggestions > and fixes that didn’t go through the reroll. > > For example, commit ("fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount > option to prevent false alerts") updates a comment that’s missing > from your for-next branch. Oh, I've merged this patch from your for-next branch when I saw you said: "Fixed. Applied to for-next at https://github.com/asj/fstests.git": https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/68aa436b-4ddd-4ee7-ad5a-8eca55aae176@oracle.com/ Sorry, I saw you used "past tense", I didn't notice you changed it after that. Please feel free to send another patch to do this change, there'll be a release this week too :) Thanks, Zorro > > -------------- > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/226 b/tests/btrfs/226 > index 359813c4f394..ce53b7d48c49 100755 > --- a/tests/btrfs/226 > +++ b/tests/btrfs/226 > @@ -22,10 +22,8 @@ _require_xfs_io_command fpunch > > _scratch_mkfs >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > > -# This test involves RWF_NOWAIT direct IOs, but for inodes with data > checksum, > -# btrfs will fall back to buffered IO unconditionally to prevent data > checksum > -# mimsatch, and that will break RWF_NOWAIT with -EAGAIN. > -# So here we have to go with nodatasum mount option. > +# RWF_NOWAIT works only with direct I/O and requires an inode with > nodatasum > +# to avoid checksum mismatches. Otherwise, it falls back to buffered I/O. > _scratch_mount -o nodatasum > > # Test a write against COW file/extent - should fail with -EAGAIN. Disable > the > -------------- > > > Thanks, Anand > > > On 14/2/25 19:05, Anand Jain wrote: > > Zorro, > > > > Please pull these branches with the Btrfs test case changes. > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next > > > > The branch [1] is good to merge directly into master. It’s been tested, > > doesn’t affect other file systems, and has RB from key Btrfs contributors. > > But if you feel we need to discuss it more before doing it, no problem— > > kindly help merge it into for-next. (It is based on the master). > > > > After that, could you pull this branch [2] into your for-next only? as it > > depends on the btrfs/333 test case, which is not yet in the master. > > > > [2] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next > > > > Thank you. > > > > PR 1: > > ==== > > > > The following changes since commit 8467552f09e1672a02712653b532a84bd46ea10e: > > > > btrfs/327: add a test case to verify inline extent data read (2024-11-29 11:20:18 +0800) > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 429ed656f99c06f8036eff1088d93059d782add4: > > > > btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:35:16 +0800) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Filipe Manana (7): > > btrfs: skip tests incompatible with compression when compression is enabled > > btrfs/290: skip test if we are running with nodatacow mount option > > common/btrfs: add a _require_btrfs_no_nodatasum helper > > btrfs/205: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option > > btrfs: skip tests exercising data corruption and repair when using nodatasum > > btrfs/281: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option > > btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum > > > > Qu Wenruo (1): > > fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount option to prevent false alerts > > > > common/btrfs | 7 +++++++ > > tests/btrfs/048 | 3 +++ > > tests/btrfs/059 | 3 +++ > > tests/btrfs/140 | 4 +++- > > tests/btrfs/141 | 4 +++- > > tests/btrfs/157 | 4 +++- > > tests/btrfs/158 | 4 +++- > > tests/btrfs/205 | 5 +++++ > > tests/btrfs/215 | 8 +++++++- > > tests/btrfs/226 | 5 ++++- > > tests/btrfs/265 | 7 ++++++- > > tests/btrfs/266 | 7 ++++++- > > tests/btrfs/267 | 7 ++++++- > > tests/btrfs/268 | 7 ++++++- > > tests/btrfs/269 | 7 ++++++- > > tests/btrfs/281 | 2 ++ > > tests/btrfs/289 | 8 ++++++-- > > tests/btrfs/290 | 12 ++++++++++++ > > tests/btrfs/297 | 4 ++++ > > 19 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > PR 2: > > ===== > > > > The following changes since commit d1adf462e4b291547014212f0d602e3d2a7c7cef: > > > > check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE (2025-02-02 21:28:37 +0800) > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next > > > > for you to fetch changes up to dd2c1d2fa744aa305c88bd5910cce0e19dfb6f41: > > > > btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:37:09 +0800) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Filipe Manana (1): > > btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum > > > > tests/btrfs/333 | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > >
On 18/2/25 11:51, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:26:20AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> >> Zorro, >> >> I wonder if you've already pulled this? >> >> The branches in the PR below also include nitpick suggestions >> and fixes that didn’t go through the reroll. >> >> For example, commit ("fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount >> option to prevent false alerts") updates a comment that’s missing >> from your for-next branch. > > Oh, I've merged this patch from your for-next branch when I saw > you said: "Fixed. Applied to for-next at https://github.com/asj/fstests.git": Got it! Moving forward, I’ll keep the `for-next` branch up to date so it’s ready for you to merge whenever needed. Does that sound good? Also, the fixup patch for the missed changes has been added to the `for-next` branch. Thanks, Anand > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/68aa436b-4ddd-4ee7-ad5a-8eca55aae176@oracle.com/ > > Sorry, I saw you used "past tense", I didn't notice you changed it after that. > Please feel free to send another patch to do this change, there'll be a release > this week too :) > > Thanks, > Zorro > >> >> -------------- >> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/226 b/tests/btrfs/226 >> index 359813c4f394..ce53b7d48c49 100755 >> --- a/tests/btrfs/226 >> +++ b/tests/btrfs/226 >> @@ -22,10 +22,8 @@ _require_xfs_io_command fpunch >> >> _scratch_mkfs >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >> >> -# This test involves RWF_NOWAIT direct IOs, but for inodes with data >> checksum, >> -# btrfs will fall back to buffered IO unconditionally to prevent data >> checksum >> -# mimsatch, and that will break RWF_NOWAIT with -EAGAIN. >> -# So here we have to go with nodatasum mount option. >> +# RWF_NOWAIT works only with direct I/O and requires an inode with >> nodatasum >> +# to avoid checksum mismatches. Otherwise, it falls back to buffered I/O. >> _scratch_mount -o nodatasum >> >> # Test a write against COW file/extent - should fail with -EAGAIN. Disable >> the >> -------------- >> >> >> Thanks, Anand >> >> >> On 14/2/25 19:05, Anand Jain wrote: >>> Zorro, >>> >>> Please pull these branches with the Btrfs test case changes. >>> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next >>> >>> The branch [1] is good to merge directly into master. It’s been tested, >>> doesn’t affect other file systems, and has RB from key Btrfs contributors. >>> But if you feel we need to discuss it more before doing it, no problem— >>> kindly help merge it into for-next. (It is based on the master). >>> >>> After that, could you pull this branch [2] into your for-next only? as it >>> depends on the btrfs/333 test case, which is not yet in the master. >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> PR 1: >>> ==== >>> >>> The following changes since commit 8467552f09e1672a02712653b532a84bd46ea10e: >>> >>> btrfs/327: add a test case to verify inline extent data read (2024-11-29 11:20:18 +0800) >>> >>> are available in the Git repository at: >>> >>> https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to 429ed656f99c06f8036eff1088d93059d782add4: >>> >>> btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:35:16 +0800) >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Filipe Manana (7): >>> btrfs: skip tests incompatible with compression when compression is enabled >>> btrfs/290: skip test if we are running with nodatacow mount option >>> common/btrfs: add a _require_btrfs_no_nodatasum helper >>> btrfs/205: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option >>> btrfs: skip tests exercising data corruption and repair when using nodatasum >>> btrfs/281: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option >>> btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum >>> >>> Qu Wenruo (1): >>> fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount option to prevent false alerts >>> >>> common/btrfs | 7 +++++++ >>> tests/btrfs/048 | 3 +++ >>> tests/btrfs/059 | 3 +++ >>> tests/btrfs/140 | 4 +++- >>> tests/btrfs/141 | 4 +++- >>> tests/btrfs/157 | 4 +++- >>> tests/btrfs/158 | 4 +++- >>> tests/btrfs/205 | 5 +++++ >>> tests/btrfs/215 | 8 +++++++- >>> tests/btrfs/226 | 5 ++++- >>> tests/btrfs/265 | 7 ++++++- >>> tests/btrfs/266 | 7 ++++++- >>> tests/btrfs/267 | 7 ++++++- >>> tests/btrfs/268 | 7 ++++++- >>> tests/btrfs/269 | 7 ++++++- >>> tests/btrfs/281 | 2 ++ >>> tests/btrfs/289 | 8 ++++++-- >>> tests/btrfs/290 | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> tests/btrfs/297 | 4 ++++ >>> 19 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>> >>> PR 2: >>> ===== >>> >>> The following changes since commit d1adf462e4b291547014212f0d602e3d2a7c7cef: >>> >>> check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE (2025-02-02 21:28:37 +0800) >>> >>> are available in the Git repository at: >>> >>> https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to dd2c1d2fa744aa305c88bd5910cce0e19dfb6f41: >>> >>> btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:37:09 +0800) >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Filipe Manana (1): >>> btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum >>> >>> tests/btrfs/333 | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> >
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:53:05PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > On 18/2/25 11:51, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:26:20AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > > > > Zorro, > > > > > > I wonder if you've already pulled this? > > > > > > The branches in the PR below also include nitpick suggestions > > > and fixes that didn’t go through the reroll. > > > > > > For example, commit ("fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount > > > option to prevent false alerts") updates a comment that’s missing > > > from your for-next branch. > > > > Oh, I've merged this patch from your for-next branch when I saw > > you said: "Fixed. Applied to for-next at https://github.com/asj/fstests.git": > > > Got it! Moving forward, I’ll keep the `for-next` branch up to date > so it’s ready for you to merge whenever needed. Does that sound good? Do the patches in your for-next mean "I've merged" or "I've tested/verified" ? I think there're 2 ways we can choose: 1) If you hope I merge from your for-next each time, I'd like to merge the "tested and no more changes" patches to avoid the issue we just met above. 2) Or I only merge when you send a PR to tell me which patches are ready. > > Also, the fixup patch for the missed changes has been added to > the `for-next` branch. We'd better not merge patches in private. Please send patch to the list, even if it's simple enough:) Thanks, Zorro > > Thanks, Anand > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/68aa436b-4ddd-4ee7-ad5a-8eca55aae176@oracle.com/ > > > > Sorry, I saw you used "past tense", I didn't notice you changed it after that. > > Please feel free to send another patch to do this change, there'll be a release > > this week too :) > > > > Thanks, > > Zorro > > > > > > > > -------------- > > > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/226 b/tests/btrfs/226 > > > index 359813c4f394..ce53b7d48c49 100755 > > > --- a/tests/btrfs/226 > > > +++ b/tests/btrfs/226 > > > @@ -22,10 +22,8 @@ _require_xfs_io_command fpunch > > > > > > _scratch_mkfs >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > > > > > > -# This test involves RWF_NOWAIT direct IOs, but for inodes with data > > > checksum, > > > -# btrfs will fall back to buffered IO unconditionally to prevent data > > > checksum > > > -# mimsatch, and that will break RWF_NOWAIT with -EAGAIN. > > > -# So here we have to go with nodatasum mount option. > > > +# RWF_NOWAIT works only with direct I/O and requires an inode with > > > nodatasum > > > +# to avoid checksum mismatches. Otherwise, it falls back to buffered I/O. > > > _scratch_mount -o nodatasum > > > > > > # Test a write against COW file/extent - should fail with -EAGAIN. Disable > > > the > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Anand > > > > > > > > > On 14/2/25 19:05, Anand Jain wrote: > > > > Zorro, > > > > > > > > Please pull these branches with the Btrfs test case changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next > > > > > > > > The branch [1] is good to merge directly into master. It’s been tested, > > > > doesn’t affect other file systems, and has RB from key Btrfs contributors. > > > > But if you feel we need to discuss it more before doing it, no problem— > > > > kindly help merge it into for-next. (It is based on the master). > > > > > > > > After that, could you pull this branch [2] into your for-next only? as it > > > > depends on the btrfs/333 test case, which is not yet in the master. > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > PR 1: > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > The following changes since commit 8467552f09e1672a02712653b532a84bd46ea10e: > > > > > > > > btrfs/327: add a test case to verify inline extent data read (2024-11-29 11:20:18 +0800) > > > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next > > > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 429ed656f99c06f8036eff1088d93059d782add4: > > > > > > > > btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:35:16 +0800) > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Filipe Manana (7): > > > > btrfs: skip tests incompatible with compression when compression is enabled > > > > btrfs/290: skip test if we are running with nodatacow mount option > > > > common/btrfs: add a _require_btrfs_no_nodatasum helper > > > > btrfs/205: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option > > > > btrfs: skip tests exercising data corruption and repair when using nodatasum > > > > btrfs/281: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option > > > > btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum > > > > > > > > Qu Wenruo (1): > > > > fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount option to prevent false alerts > > > > > > > > common/btrfs | 7 +++++++ > > > > tests/btrfs/048 | 3 +++ > > > > tests/btrfs/059 | 3 +++ > > > > tests/btrfs/140 | 4 +++- > > > > tests/btrfs/141 | 4 +++- > > > > tests/btrfs/157 | 4 +++- > > > > tests/btrfs/158 | 4 +++- > > > > tests/btrfs/205 | 5 +++++ > > > > tests/btrfs/215 | 8 +++++++- > > > > tests/btrfs/226 | 5 ++++- > > > > tests/btrfs/265 | 7 ++++++- > > > > tests/btrfs/266 | 7 ++++++- > > > > tests/btrfs/267 | 7 ++++++- > > > > tests/btrfs/268 | 7 ++++++- > > > > tests/btrfs/269 | 7 ++++++- > > > > tests/btrfs/281 | 2 ++ > > > > tests/btrfs/289 | 8 ++++++-- > > > > tests/btrfs/290 | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > tests/btrfs/297 | 4 ++++ > > > > 19 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > PR 2: > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > The following changes since commit d1adf462e4b291547014212f0d602e3d2a7c7cef: > > > > > > > > check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE (2025-02-02 21:28:37 +0800) > > > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next > > > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to dd2c1d2fa744aa305c88bd5910cce0e19dfb6f41: > > > > > > > > btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:37:09 +0800) > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Filipe Manana (1): > > > > btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum > > > > > > > > tests/btrfs/333 | 5 +++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > >
On 18/2/25 21:14, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:53:05PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> On 18/2/25 11:51, Zorro Lang wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:26:20AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >>>> >>>> Zorro, >>>> >>>> I wonder if you've already pulled this? >>>> >>>> The branches in the PR below also include nitpick suggestions >>>> and fixes that didn’t go through the reroll. >>>> >>>> For example, commit ("fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount >>>> option to prevent false alerts") updates a comment that’s missing >>>> from your for-next branch. >>> >>> Oh, I've merged this patch from your for-next branch when I saw >>> you said: "Fixed. Applied to for-next at https://github.com/asj/fstests.git": >> >> >> Got it! Moving forward, I’ll keep the `for-next` branch up to date >> so it’s ready for you to merge whenever needed. Does that sound good? > > Do the patches in your for-next mean "I've merged" or "I've tested/verified" ? > I think there're 2 ways we can choose: > > 1) If you hope I merge from your for-next each time, I'd like to merge the > "tested and no more changes" patches to avoid the issue we just met > above. > 2) Or I only merge when you send a PR to tell me which patches are ready. Let’s go with option 1. (I thought we were doing option 2.) Pull only from `for-next`; though patches will pass through a staging branch first. >> >> Also, the fixup patch for the missed changes has been added to >> the `for-next` branch. > > We'd better not merge patches in private. Please send patch to the list, > even if it's simple enough:) > The missing diff isn’t private. Anyway, the patch is on the ML now. Thanks, Anand > Thanks, > Zorro > >> >> Thanks, Anand >> >> >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/68aa436b-4ddd-4ee7-ad5a-8eca55aae176@oracle.com/ >>> >>> Sorry, I saw you used "past tense", I didn't notice you changed it after that. >>> Please feel free to send another patch to do this change, there'll be a release >>> this week too :) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Zorro >>> >>>> >>>> -------------- >>>> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/226 b/tests/btrfs/226 >>>> index 359813c4f394..ce53b7d48c49 100755 >>>> --- a/tests/btrfs/226 >>>> +++ b/tests/btrfs/226 >>>> @@ -22,10 +22,8 @@ _require_xfs_io_command fpunch >>>> >>>> _scratch_mkfs >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>>> >>>> -# This test involves RWF_NOWAIT direct IOs, but for inodes with data >>>> checksum, >>>> -# btrfs will fall back to buffered IO unconditionally to prevent data >>>> checksum >>>> -# mimsatch, and that will break RWF_NOWAIT with -EAGAIN. >>>> -# So here we have to go with nodatasum mount option. >>>> +# RWF_NOWAIT works only with direct I/O and requires an inode with >>>> nodatasum >>>> +# to avoid checksum mismatches. Otherwise, it falls back to buffered I/O. >>>> _scratch_mount -o nodatasum >>>> >>>> # Test a write against COW file/extent - should fail with -EAGAIN. Disable >>>> the >>>> -------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, Anand >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14/2/25 19:05, Anand Jain wrote: >>>>> Zorro, >>>>> >>>>> Please pull these branches with the Btrfs test case changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next >>>>> >>>>> The branch [1] is good to merge directly into master. It’s been tested, >>>>> doesn’t affect other file systems, and has RB from key Btrfs contributors. >>>>> But if you feel we need to discuss it more before doing it, no problem— >>>>> kindly help merge it into for-next. (It is based on the master). >>>>> >>>>> After that, could you pull this branch [2] into your for-next only? as it >>>>> depends on the btrfs/333 test case, which is not yet in the master. >>>>> >>>>> [2] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> PR 1: >>>>> ==== >>>>> >>>>> The following changes since commit 8467552f09e1672a02712653b532a84bd46ea10e: >>>>> >>>>> btrfs/327: add a test case to verify inline extent data read (2024-11-29 11:20:18 +0800) >>>>> >>>>> are available in the Git repository at: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next >>>>> >>>>> for you to fetch changes up to 429ed656f99c06f8036eff1088d93059d782add4: >>>>> >>>>> btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:35:16 +0800) >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Filipe Manana (7): >>>>> btrfs: skip tests incompatible with compression when compression is enabled >>>>> btrfs/290: skip test if we are running with nodatacow mount option >>>>> common/btrfs: add a _require_btrfs_no_nodatasum helper >>>>> btrfs/205: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option >>>>> btrfs: skip tests exercising data corruption and repair when using nodatasum >>>>> btrfs/281: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option >>>>> btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum >>>>> >>>>> Qu Wenruo (1): >>>>> fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount option to prevent false alerts >>>>> >>>>> common/btrfs | 7 +++++++ >>>>> tests/btrfs/048 | 3 +++ >>>>> tests/btrfs/059 | 3 +++ >>>>> tests/btrfs/140 | 4 +++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/141 | 4 +++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/157 | 4 +++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/158 | 4 +++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/205 | 5 +++++ >>>>> tests/btrfs/215 | 8 +++++++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/226 | 5 ++++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/265 | 7 ++++++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/266 | 7 ++++++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/267 | 7 ++++++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/268 | 7 ++++++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/269 | 7 ++++++- >>>>> tests/btrfs/281 | 2 ++ >>>>> tests/btrfs/289 | 8 ++++++-- >>>>> tests/btrfs/290 | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>>> tests/btrfs/297 | 4 ++++ >>>>> 19 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> PR 2: >>>>> ===== >>>>> >>>>> The following changes since commit d1adf462e4b291547014212f0d602e3d2a7c7cef: >>>>> >>>>> check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE (2025-02-02 21:28:37 +0800) >>>>> >>>>> are available in the Git repository at: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next >>>>> >>>>> for you to fetch changes up to dd2c1d2fa744aa305c88bd5910cce0e19dfb6f41: >>>>> >>>>> btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:37:09 +0800) >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Filipe Manana (1): >>>>> btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum >>>>> >>>>> tests/btrfs/333 | 5 +++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Zorro, Please pull these branches with the Btrfs test case changes. [1] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next The branch [1] is good to merge directly into master. It’s been tested, doesn’t affect other file systems, and has RB from key Btrfs contributors. But if you feel we need to discuss it more before doing it, no problem— kindly help merge it into for-next. (It is based on the master). After that, could you pull this branch [2] into your for-next only? as it depends on the btrfs/333 test case, which is not yet in the master. [2] https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next Thank you. PR 1: ==== The following changes since commit 8467552f09e1672a02712653b532a84bd46ea10e: btrfs/327: add a test case to verify inline extent data read (2024-11-29 11:20:18 +0800) are available in the Git repository at: https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-master_or_for-next for you to fetch changes up to 429ed656f99c06f8036eff1088d93059d782add4: btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:35:16 +0800) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Filipe Manana (7): btrfs: skip tests incompatible with compression when compression is enabled btrfs/290: skip test if we are running with nodatacow mount option common/btrfs: add a _require_btrfs_no_nodatasum helper btrfs/205: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option btrfs: skip tests exercising data corruption and repair when using nodatasum btrfs/281: skip test when running with nodatasum mount option btrfs: skip tests that exercise compression property when using nodatasum Qu Wenruo (1): fstests: btrfs/226: use nodatasum mount option to prevent false alerts common/btrfs | 7 +++++++ tests/btrfs/048 | 3 +++ tests/btrfs/059 | 3 +++ tests/btrfs/140 | 4 +++- tests/btrfs/141 | 4 +++- tests/btrfs/157 | 4 +++- tests/btrfs/158 | 4 +++- tests/btrfs/205 | 5 +++++ tests/btrfs/215 | 8 +++++++- tests/btrfs/226 | 5 ++++- tests/btrfs/265 | 7 ++++++- tests/btrfs/266 | 7 ++++++- tests/btrfs/267 | 7 ++++++- tests/btrfs/268 | 7 ++++++- tests/btrfs/269 | 7 ++++++- tests/btrfs/281 | 2 ++ tests/btrfs/289 | 8 ++++++-- tests/btrfs/290 | 12 ++++++++++++ tests/btrfs/297 | 4 ++++ 19 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) PR 2: ===== The following changes since commit d1adf462e4b291547014212f0d602e3d2a7c7cef: check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE (2025-02-02 21:28:37 +0800) are available in the Git repository at: https://github.com/asj/fstests.git staged-20250214-for-next for you to fetch changes up to dd2c1d2fa744aa305c88bd5910cce0e19dfb6f41: btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum (2025-02-14 18:37:09 +0800) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Filipe Manana (1): btrfs/333: skip the test when running with nodatacow or nodatasum tests/btrfs/333 | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)