On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 05:48:59PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 2/14/14, 4:24 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > 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. > > sure but some of this test is still valid on a kernel w/o relatime. > And since it's the default, "relatime" might disappear from /proc/mounts > some day anyway, so explicitly mounting with the option & failing > if that fails might be good future-proofind in any case. > > *shrug* > > It was just a request, not a demand. :) Koen, you can do with > it whatever you like. Reviews aren't ultimatums. :) > > If xfstests upstream is only targeted at the current kernel, that's > fine, but maye we should make that a little more explicit.
That's not what I meant. ;) Really, all I'm saying is that we can't expect people who are writing tests that work on current kernels to know what is necessary to make tests work on 7 year old distros that don't support a feature that has been in mainline for 5 years. Hence that shouldn't be a barrier to having a test committed as we have mechanisms for distro QE to handle these sorts of issues... Indeed, I'm quite happy to host distro specific test expunge files in the upstream repo so anyone can see what tests are expected to pass/run on various distros.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
