On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 01:21:25PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 17-01-18 20:28:31, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 05:09:36PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > If I run xfstests on ext4 with a kernel with CONFIG_QFMT_V2=n, the following > > > tests fail: > > > > > > generic/082 > > > generic/219 > > > generic/230 > > > generic/231 > > > generic/232 > > > generic/233 > > > generic/234 > > > generic/235 > > > generic/244 > > > generic/270 > > > generic/382 > > > > > > Would it be possible to handle this case and skip the test instead? > > > > I'd like to ask a different question, which is there a reason to > > support CONFIG_QFMT_V1 && !CONFIG_QFMT_V2? Maybe we should just > > always enable CONFIG_QFMT_V2, and simplify the test matrix? > > Well, with ancient setups you could be using V1 quota format and then you > don't need CONFIG_QFMT_V2. So I don't see a great reason to force enabling > of CONFIG_QFMT_V2... > > Omar's problem is actually that he had no quota format enabled so tools > failed miserably to enable quotas although xfstests thought quota should be > available. That could be viewed as a bug in _require_quota() macro in xfstests > but OTOH userspace has no way of knowing which quota formats are available > - it can only try to enable quota on a particular fs and that either fails > or not. So implementing proper _require_quota() macro would mean you have > to do full quota setup for some filesystem, try to enable quotas, and see if > that fails. Doable but frankly I'm not hugely interested in that for such a > cornercase... Yeah, I'll just disable these tests. Thanks, Jan and Ted. -- 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
