Re: [PATCH 03/10] generic/710: repurpose this for exchangerange vs. quota testing

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:06:28AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 09:55:26AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:23:18AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:08:37PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 05:47:32PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > The exchange-range implementation is now completely separate from the
> > > > > old swapext ioctl.  We're deprecating the old swapext ioctl, so let's
> > > > > move this test to use exchangerange.
> > > > 
> > > > Do we really want to lost the swapext test coverage?  Even if it is
> > > > deprecated, it will be with us for a long time.  My vote for copy and
> > > > pasting this into a new test for exchrange.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, you're right that we should retain this test for the old swapext
> > > ioctl.  I'll fork the test into two -- one for swapext, another for
> > > exchangerange.
> > 
> > ...except that the swapext ioctl doesn't support swapping forks if quota
> > is enabled and any of the user/group/project ids are different:
> > 
> > 
> > 	/* User/group/project quota ids must match if quotas are enforced. */
> > 	if (XFS_IS_QUOTA_ON(ip->i_mount) &&
> > 	    (!uid_eq(VFS_I(ip)->i_uid, VFS_I(tip)->i_uid) ||
> > 	     !gid_eq(VFS_I(ip)->i_gid, VFS_I(tip)->i_gid) ||
> > 	     ip->i_projid != tip->i_projid))
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > I'll amend the commit message:
> > 
> > "There's no point in maintaining this test for the legacy swapext code
> > because it returns EINVAL if any quota is enabled and the two files have
> > different user/group/project ids.  Originally I had forward ported the
> > old swapext ioctl to use commitrange as its backend, but that will be
> > dropped in favor of porting xfs_fsr to use commitrange directly."
> 
> Hi Darrick,
> 
> I can help to change the patch [4/10] and [10/10] if you need. But for this
> one, will you re-send this patch or the whole patchset?

I plan on resending this patchset, since I've found a couple more
swapext tests that need correcting.

--D

> Thanks,
> Zorro
> 
> > 
> > --D
> > 
> 
> 




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux