Hi, On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:59:02 +0000, Long An wrote: ... > > > + "-m dup -d dup -M:1 no 64" \ > > > > This dup/dup case no longer gets run with a default > > _btrfs_profile_configs[]. Is that intentional? > > > > Cheers, David > > I thought profiles from "BTRFS_PROFILE_CONFIGS" should be fine. But > this really changed behavior with default configs, and will get worse > if use "_btrfs_profile_configs replace". > > In a brief, I just need a way to limit tests. If the default > config is not > suitable, how about using a new argument to > "_btrfs_get_profile_configs"? Yes, a new parameter for _btrfs_get_profile_configs() which adds the missing "dup:dup" entry sounds reasonable. Cheers, David
