On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 10:37:00AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: >> 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.... > > Thanks Dave for the clarification! > >> >> > 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. > OK, thanks for explaining it. > >> >> 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() All right. I think that the feature check should remain in the test, at least until there are more tests where this is needed and there is a clear idea what features are useful to have a check for. But other than that, I agree. > > This looks good to me. > > Hi Jan - Can you please send an updated version as Dave suggested above? > And I think the input-validation test could be updated as well to make > it only run on newer mkfs. > Yes, I will send both. Cheers, Jan -- Jan Tulak jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx / jan@xxxxxxxx -- 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
