On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:52 AM Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jun 16 2021, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:25 PM Nikolaus Rath <nikolaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Amir, > >> > >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, at 16:03, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >> > Per request from Nikolaus, I modified the passthrough_hp example > >> > to reuse inodes on last close+unlink, so it now hits the failure in the > >> > new test with upstream kernel and it passes the test with this kernel fix. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Amir. > >> > > >> > [2] https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/pull/612 > >> > >> Actually, I am no longer sure this was a good idea. Having the libfuse test suite detect > >> problems that with the kernel doesn't seem to helpful.. I think the testsuite should > >> identify problems in libfuse. Currently, having the tests means that users might be > >> hesitant to update to the newer libfuse because of the failing test - when in fact there > >> is nothing wrong with libfuse at all. > >> > > > > I suppose you are right. > > I could take the tesy_syscalls test to xfstest, but fuse support for > > xfstests is still WIP. > > > >> I assume the test will start failing on some future kernel (which is why it passed CL), > >> and then start passing again for some kernel after that? > > > > I was not aware that it passes CI. > > There are no test results available on github. > > Arg. Looks like something is broken there. I mistook the absence of > results for a passing result. > > > I am not aware of any specific kernel version where the test should pass, > > but the results also depend on the underlying filesystem. > > > > If your underlying filesystem is btrfs, it does not reuse inode numbers > > at all, so the test will not fail. > > > > For me the test fails on ext4 and xfs on LTS kernel 5.10. > > As I wrote in PR: > > "...Fails the modified test_syscalls in this PR on upstream kernel" > > > > If you revert the last commit the test would pass on upstream kernel: > > 80f2b8b ("passthrough_hp: excercise reusing inode numbers") > > > > We could make behavior of passthrough_hp example depend > > on some minimal kernel protocol version or new kernel capability like > > FUSE_SETXATTR_EXT if Miklos intends to merge the fix for the coming > > kernel release or we could just make that new test optional via pytest option. > > > > After all, regardless of the kernel bug, this adds test coverage that was > > missing, so it also covers a possible future regression in libfuse. > > > > Let me know if you want me to implement any of the listed options. > > I don't want an old kernel to result in libfuse unit tests failing, but > I think it's a good idea to cover this case in some form. > > Would you be able to make the test conditional on a recent enough kernel > version? > That looks trivial, like: def test_write_cache(tmpdir, writeback, output_checker): if writeback and LooseVersion(platform.release()) < '3.14': pytest.skip('Requires kernel 3.14 or newer') I'll just wait to see if Miklos takes the kernel fix to v5.13 so I know which version to use in the condition. Thanks, Amir.
