On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 08:56:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > --- > > common/xfs | 10 ++++++++++ > > tests/xfs/002 | 1 + > > Looks fine to me. > > > tests/xfs/045 | 1 + > > xfs_db can change uuids on v5 filesystems now, so we don't nee the > -mcrc=0 in this test. Ok, I'll look into that. > Looks fine to me. > > > tests/xfs/148 | 2 ++ > > I wonder if we could rewrite this test to use either the xfs_db write -d > command on dirents or attrs directly; or the link/attrset commands, > since AFAICT the dir/attr code doesn't itself run namecheck when > creating entries/attrs. Can I leave that to you? :) > > tests/xfs/158 | 1 + > > tests/xfs/160 | 1 + > > inobtcount and bigtime are new features, maybe these two tests should > lose the clause that checks that we can't upgrade a V4 filesystem? I'll take a look. > > tests/xfs/194 | 2 ++ > > Not sure why this one is fixated on $pagesize/8. Was that a requirement > to induce an error? Or would this work just as well on a 1k fsblock fs? > > (Eric?) I can check if it could be made to work on $pagesize/4, but I'll need to defer to Eric if that even makes sense. > > tests/xfs/513 | 1 + > > I think we should split this into separate tests for V4/V5 options and > only _require_xfs_nocrc the one with V4 options, because I wouldn't want > to stop testing V5 codepaths simply because someone turned off V4 > support in the kernle. Ok. > > tests/xfs/526 | 1 + > > I'm at a loss on this one -- what it does is useful, but there aren't > any V5 mkfs options that conflict as nicely as crc=0 does. Yes, I tried to look for conflicting options, but I couldn't find anything. Maybe we'll grow some before the v4 support is retired for real :)
