On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:55:52PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 09:50:20AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 09:18:48PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:42:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:48:31AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Sure, I can look into that. > > > > > > Hi Darrick, > > > > > > Do you still want to have this patch? > > > > > > Half of this patchset got RVB. As it's a random fix patchset, we can choose > > > merging those reviewed patches at first. Or you'd like to have them together > > > in next next release? > > > > I was about to resend the second to last patch. If you decide to remove > > xfs/122 then I'll drop this one. > > xfs/122 is a xfs specific test case, it's more important for xfs list than me. > As it doesn't break the fstests testing, I respect the decision from xfs folks, > about keeping or removing it :) I think we shouldn't consider dropping this until there's an xfsprogs release with xfs_ondisk.h in the build process. Even then, my preference would be to leave a mark in xfs_db somewhere so that we keep running this test for old userspace (i.e. the mark isn't found). --D > Thanks, > Zorro > > > > > --D > > > > > Thanks, > > > Zorro > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
