On 11/18/21 8:19 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 10:38 +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
On 11/17/21 11:06 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Wed, 2021-11-17 at 09:21 +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
[...]
Hi Jeff,
I tested these two cases many times again today and both worked well for me.
[root@lxbceph1 xfstests]# ./check generic/075
FSTYP -- ceph
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 lxbceph1 5.15.0+
MKFS_OPTIONS -- 10.72.7.17:40543:/testB
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o
test_dummy_encryption,name=admin,secret=AQDS3IFhEtxvORAAxn1d4FVN2bRUsc/TZMpQvQ==
-o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 10.72.7.17:40543:/testB
/mnt/kcephfs/testD
generic/075 106s ... 356s
Ran: generic/075
Passed all 1 tests
[root@lxbceph1 xfstests]# ./check generic/029
FSTYP -- ceph
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 lxbceph1 5.15.0+
MKFS_OPTIONS -- 10.72.7.17:40543:/testB
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o
test_dummy_encryption,name=admin,secret=AQDS3IFhEtxvORAAxn1d4FVN2bRUsc/TZMpQvQ==
-o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 10.72.7.17:40543:/testB
/mnt/kcephfs/testD
generic/029 4s ... 3s
Ran: generic/029
Passed all 1 tests
On the cluster-side, I'm using a cephadm cluster built using an image
based on your fsize_support branch, rebased onto master (the Oct 7 base
you're using is not good for cephadm).
I have updated this branch last night by rebasing it onto the latest
upstream master.
And at the same time I have removed the commit:
bf39d32d936 mds: bump truncate seq when fscrypt_file changes
On the client side, I'm using the ceph-client/wip-fscrypt-size branch,
along with this patch on top.
This I am also using the same branch from ceph-client repo. Nothing
changed in my side.
To be safe I just deleted my local branches and synced from ceph-client
repo today and test them again, still the same and worked for me.
Ok, I think I see the problem. You sent this patch with just a [PATCH]
prefix and there is no mention in the description that it's only
intended to work on top of the other fscrypt changes, so I interpreted
that to mean that this was a pre-existing bug and that this needed to go
in ahead of those patches.
That's not the case here. This patch does seem to work OK on top of the
regular fscrypt series (but I did still see some failures in certain
tests even with that). I'll look more closely at those today.
It would probably have been clearer to send this patch along with the
rest of the series to make that clear. Alternately, when you post a
series and then find that it needs a follow-on patch, you can send it as
if you're continuing the series:
[PATCH v7 10/9] ceph: do not truncate pagecache if truncate size doesn't change
Ideally though, this change would be rolled into one of the other
patches in your series.
Sure Jeff.
Sorry for confusing, since I am mainly working and testing the fscrypt
related patches and I didn't make it clear where should this patch go.
In future, I will mention if we need to patch it on top of the fscrypt
related branches and will do it as you mentioned above.
Thanks.
BRs
-- Xiubo
Thanks,
