On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:11:16AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 12:47:57PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > > > This is v4 with only a minimal change to getopt_long_only(). The rest is > > > identical. In v3 the changes requested by Christoph and his Reviewed-bys > > > added. I've also added Josef's Reviewed-by for the newly added btrfs > > > specific idmapped mount testsuite. There are no major changes to v2. > > > > > > This time around I've put everyone in To: to make sure that they receive > > > all patches. The list apparently still refues patches if they are fairly > > > huge. The series can be pulled from three locations: > > > > > > git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/xfstests-dev fs.idmapped.nested_userns > > > git@xxxxxxxxxx:brauner/xfstests.git fs.idmapped.nested_userns > > > git@xxxxxxxxxx:brauner/xfstests.git fs.idmapped.nested_userns > > > > > > This adds three new tests: > > > - a regression test for vfs capabilities > > > - a new test with nested and complex idmapping layouts > > > - a new btrfs specific idmapped mount testsuite > > > > > > Since v2 patches to support idmapped mounts on btrfs have been merged > > > into btrfs' for-next tree: > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=f691ae1e0bc591df5e9897387d726adbb440fc4c > > > and so are on track to be included for v5.15. I'd like to get the btrfs > > > tests merged now so linux-next can be tested with the them. I hope > > > that's ok. > > > > > > I ran: > > > git rebase -i -x "make -j4 clean && make -j4 && sudo ./check -g idmapped" HEAD~8 > > > on the whole series. Everthing passes. > > > > Hey Eryu, > > > > Sorry for asking but it's been a few months. Did you miss this series > > intentionally this iteration? After last weeks mail I added all > > Acks/Reviewed-bys that came in so this should hopefully be good to go. > > Thanks for the revision, that really helps! And I left this patchset > intentionally, as it's a big patchset that may need more exposure time. > > > > > I'd really like to see these new tests going in rather soon as their > > quite crucial to ensure correct functionality especially since we're > > seeing new filesystems making use of idmapped mounts. > > Sure, I'll merge them this week if there's no more comments. Perfect, thank you! Christian
