> > > I can understand above 2 patches, but this patch looks weird to me. We can > > > give a hint to downstream testing (from upstream commit side). But deal with > > > known issues, that's another story. I'd like to let testers from different > > > downstream kernels to deal with their known issues checking by themselves, > > > don't depend on upstream fstests for all. > > > > > > > Not sure I understand your point. > > Oh, sorry I didn't explain that clearly. I mean patch [1/3] and [2/3] can be improved > by more talking, but [3/3] is not reasonable for me. > > Let's see what's the purpose of _known_issue_on_fs(): > > 1) If it trys to work for upstream mainline: > As a hint, it can be replaced by known commit output [2/3]. As a forcibly "_notrun" to a fs, > it can be replaced by _supported_fs ^$someonefs with a proper comment [1/3]. As a test driven > tool... no, I don't like to make xfstests to be place which developers used to record/update/ > remind their "planning to do/fix", they can record them in other place :) > > 2) If it trys to help downstream testing: > It's really helpless for downstream testing, except downstream testers maintain their > own xfstests, and change `_known_issue_on_fs xxx` for themselves. But as a downstream > tester, I'd like to maintain our known issues (known failures and skip list) by > ourselves in another place, not in xfstests inside. > > Anyway, let's see reviewpoint from others too :) > I understand your POV and agree that the value of _known_issue_on_fs is questionable, so I don't mind dropping patch 3/3. Regarding overlay/061, it is not really a problem, I was just using it as an example. I had already addressed the issue of this test by commit fdb69864 overlay/061: remove from auto and quick groups Thanks, Amir.
