On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:18:48AM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: > On 2/14/25 03:19, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 03:30:50PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: > > > On 2/13/25 03:17, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:39:58PM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: > > Ok, so CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=n is the correct behaviour (known mount > > option, invalid configuration being asked for), and it is the > > CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=y behaviour that is broken. > > Okay, so do you find this testcase (patch 3/3 xfs: Add a testcase to check > remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs) useful, Not at this point in time, because xfs/189 is supposed to exercise attr2/noattr2 mount/remount behaviour and take into account all the weirdness of the historic mount behaviour. Obviously, it is not detecting that this noattr2 remount behaviour was broken, so that test needs fixing/additions. Indeed, it's probably important to understand why xfs/189 isn't detecting this failure before going any further, right? IMO, it is better to fix existing tests that exercise the behaviour in question than it is to add a new test that covers just what the old test missed. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
