On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 11:59:19AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 01:19:02PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:37:51PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 04:22:38AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:17:43PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > > > The linux kernel removed Reiserfs support in 6.13 so remove it from the > > > > > tests as well. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Arguably reiser4 support could be removed as well as there's no recent > > > > > upstream activity. > > > > > > > > Thanks for doing this :) But even with this patch, I still can find more > > > > "reiser*" related things as below. How about removing them all? > > > > > > > > zorro@zlang-laptop:~/git/upstream/xfs/xfstests-dev$ grep -rsni reiser . > > > > ./common/config:330:export MKFS_REISER4_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.reiser4) > > > > ./common/config:390: reiser4) > > > > ./common/config:391: # acls & xattrs aren't supported by reiser4 > > > > ./common/config:392: echo $REISER4_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > > > ./common/config:443: reiser4) > > > > ./common/config:444: export MKFS_OPTIONS=$REISER4_MKFS_OPTIONS > > > > ./common/config:472: reiser*) > > > > ./common/config:540: reiser4) > > > > ./common/config:541: [ "$MKFS_REISER4_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.reiser4 not found" > > > > ./common/rc:1227: ext2|ext3|ext4|reiser4|ocfs2) > > > > ./common/rc:1331: reiser4) > > > > ./common/rc:1333: $MKFS_REISER4_PROG $MKFS_OPTIONS -y -b $blocksize "$@" $SCRATCH_DEV \ > > > > > > This is reiser4, the reasoning would be different as it's an out-of-tree > > > module but still somehow developed so there's a chance somebody is using > > > it. > > > > Sorry I saw you said "Arguably reiser4 support could be removed as well > > as there's no recent upstream activity.", then removed reiser4 from > > generic/740 [1], so I thought you want to remove it too :) > > Oh I see, > > > - reiserfs|reiser4) > > - preop="echo y |" > > - preargs="-f" > > - ;; > > this was not intentional, I mean to remove only the "reiserfs|" part. No worry, if so I'll help to remove only the "reiserfs|" part when I merge this patch. > > This may bring the question what is the policy for filesystem support. > I've seen "case $FSTYP" with widely inconsistent cases of filesystems, > probably the longest list is in common/rc:_require_scratch_nocheck with > 9p, virtiofs, afs, pvfs2 or ubifs. It would be good to document that in > README, I haven't found anything in that regard. Good idea, maybe we should have a list about that. There's not a limitation about what filesystems are supported or not. Especially the generic test cases, some "not in list" filesystems might run generic tests too. So we don't exclude any filesystem which wants to try fstests. Generally when someone wants to help fstests to support a new filesystem, there're 3 phases: 1) Check if fstests can mkfs, mount, unmount and fsck on this fs natively. If it can't, add the fs to the "case...esac" list, to do special treatment. 2) Run generic test case on the new fs, fix some test failures which are not suitable for this fs. 3) Add more test cases for this fs, might need a new tests/$FSTYP directory and more common helpers. Actually some of filesystems which are "supported" by xfstests, just satisfy the phase#1, or a few phase#2. That depends on how deeply that fs list would like to use xfstests. But everything is still changing. For example, we don't support nfs much, just in phase#1. But as more and more nfs folks start to use xfstests, it's good to run on nfs now, even reach to part of phase#3. In contrast, although cifs is in the list, and xfstests can be run on it, but too many test failures, no one from cifs would like to care about that. So about the "support list", what's the standard to count in a fs :) Thanks, Zorro >
