On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:09:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:34:03PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > I believe you reproduced a problem with your customized realtime variant > > of the initial test. I've not been able to reproduce any test failures > > with patch 2 here, though I have tried to streamline the test a bit to > > reduce unnecessary bits (patch 1 still reproduces the original > > problems). I also don't tend to test much with rt, so it's possible my > > config is off somehow or another. Otherwise I _think_ I've included the > > necessary changes for rt support in the test itself. > > > > Thoughts? I'd like to figure out what might be going on there before > > this should land.. > > Darrick mentioned that was just with his rt group patchset, which > make sense as we don't have per-group metadata without that. > Ah, that would explain it then. > Anyway, the series looks good to me, and I think it supersedes my > more targeted hand crafted reproducer. > Ok, thanks. It would be nice if anybody who knows more about the rt group stuff could give the rt test a quick whirl and just confirm it's at least still effective in that known broken case after my tweaks. Otherwise I'll wait on any feedback on the code/test itself... thanks. Brian
