On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:54:59PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:18:55PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: > > Because we recently changed how mkfs behaves when it gets incorrect/invalid > > values, update the expected output to reflect the current status. > > However, keep also compatibility with the old version. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > CHANGE: added compatibility for the old xfsprogs. > > Sorry for the late response, because I was lost on this :) > > Hi Dave - what's the rule/policy of maintaining the backword > compatibility in fstests? We try to ensure that tests that work/pass on old versions of utilities continue to do so, even as the newer code changes. If the new code changes too much, then we can either stop running the test on older code, or we fork the test for the new code.... > I know that efforts have been made to make > sure new changes don't break old binaries, but is that a must or a > best-to-have? And what do you think about the xfsprogs version > comparing? (I'm OK with it :-)) We've tried to avoid using version numbers for comparisons, because that becomes a downward spiral into a mess. Instead, we have gone down the path of testing for supported features in binaries and filesystems, not checking version numbers. i.e. we don't care about the version number - we care about the feature that the binary provides. Those checks are self documenting - the test tells use what it requires which something that version number checks do not explain at all. In this case, we have a change in a binary that turns warnings into errors or issues errors rather than silently ignores what the user asked for and uses defaults. We already filter out anything relevant from the result to support all the changes in binary output since the test was introduced, so we really can't tell if the value substitution behaviour has changed anymore. IOWs, this test really isn't serving much purpose as a regression test anymore. >From that perspective, I'd say we either remove it or we stop trying to update it further by adding a new requires check for an old mkfs binary that silently accepts invalid log stripe unit sizes. i.e. don't add version number checks, add a feature check so that it only runs on old mkfs binaries but not new ones. e.g. _require_mkfs_accept_invalid_log_sunit() Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
