On Sun 14-05-17 01:26:21, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 09:06:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:04:43PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:48:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Add tests for bugs found in ext4 & xfs SEEK_HOLE implementations > > > > fixed by following patches: > > > > > > > > xfs: Fix missed holes in SEEK_HOLE implementation > > > > ext4: Fix SEEK_HOLE > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > This will cause ext4 and xfs start to fail with current linus tree and > > > appear as a new regression. So we usually don't add new tests to > > > existing cases. > > > > > > But seek_sanity_test.c deals with different SEEK_DATA/HOLE implentations > > > nicely, which would be a bit tricky to do in a new test by shell, and it > > > has all the infrastructures for new tests like this. So I think I'd > > > prefer merging this patch as is, and document the false regression alert > > > in release announce email. > > > > Make the new tests optional (i.e. on a cli switch) and add a new > > xfstest that runs them? Old test remains unchanged, doesn't fail, > > new test covers the new tests, will fail on old kernels (which is ok > > for new tests). > > Yeah, this should work and looks a better solution to me. This avoids > regressing generic/285 again when adding another new test in future, > future tests could just follow this path too. Thanks for the suggestion! > > Jan, could you please update the patch and, as suggested by Dave, make > it a new test? I can do it too if you like. Yeah, Dave's idea looks good. I'll work on it and send an updated version. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
