On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 11:23:16PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 09:24:59AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > I have the same (still unanswered) questions as last time: > > > > 1. What happens when you run ntfs3 through fstests with '-g all'? I get > > that the pass rate isn't going to be as high with ntfs3 as it is with > > ext4/xfs/btrfs, but fstests can be adapted (see the recent attempts to > > get exfat under test). > > Indeed, it's not that hard at all. I've included a patch to > xfstests-bld[1] so that you can just run "kvm-xfstests -c ntfs3 -g > auto". > > Konstantin, I would *strongly* encourage you to try running fstests, > about 60 seconds into a run, we discover that generic/013 will trigger > locking problems that could lead to deadlocks. It seems at least at my testing that if acl option is used then generic/013 will pass. I have tested this with old linux-next commit 5a4cee98ea757e1a2a1354b497afdf8fafc30a20 I have still some of my own code in it but I will test this tomorrow so I can be sure. It also seems that acl support is broken. I also suspect ntfs-3g mkfs in some failure cases. So maybe ntfs-3g mkfs will give different result than Paragons mkfs. It would be nice to test with Paragons mkfs software or that Paragon will test with ntfs-3g.
