On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:39:29AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 05:27:04PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:54:41AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Can we please just kill the goddamn test? Just waiting for the > > > xfsprogs 6.8 resync to submit the static_asserts for libxfs that > > > will handle this much better. > > > > I'll be very happen when we scuttle xfs/122 finally. > > > > However, in theory it's still be useful for QA departments to make sure > > that xfsprogs backports (HA!) don't accidentally break things. > > > > IOWs, I advocate for _notrunning this test if xfsprogs >= 6.8 is > > detected, not removing it completely. > > > > Unless someone wants to chime in and say that actually, nobody backports > > stuff to old xfsprogs? (We don't really...) > > Well, who is going to backport changes to the on-disk format in a way > that is complex enough to change strutures, and not also backport the > patch to actually check the sizes? Sounds like a weird use case to > optimize for. It turns out that xfs/122 also captures ioctl structure sizes, and those are /not/ captured by xfs_ondisk.h. I think we should add those before we kill xfs/122. --D
