On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 12:27:55AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote: > Hello, > > Christian Brauner: > > This series passes the LTP and xfstests suites without any regressions. For > > xfstests the following combinations were tested: > > I've found a behaviour got changed from v6.1 to v6.2-rc1 on ext3 (ext4). Hey, I'll try to take a look before new years. But what xfstests exactly is reporting a failure? What xfstests config did you use? How can I reproduce this? Did you bisect it to this series specifically? Thanks! Christian > > ---------------------------------------- > on v6.1 > + ls -ld /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > drwxrwsr-x 2 nobody nogroup 1024 Dec 27 14:46 /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > > + getfacl -d /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > # file: dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > # owner: nobody > # group: nogroup > # flags: -s- > > ---------------------------------------- > on v6.2-rc1 > + ls -ld /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > drwxrwsr-x+ 2 nobody nogroup 1024 Dec 27 23:51 /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > > + getfacl -d /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > # file: dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > # owner: nobody > # group: nogroup > # flags: -s- > user::rwx > user:root:rwx > group::r-x > mask::rwx > other::r-x > > ---------------------------------------- > > - in the output from 'ls -l', the extra '+' appears > - in the output from 'getfacl -d', some lines are appended > - in those lines, I am not sure whether 'user:root:rwx' is correct or > not. Even it is correct, getfacl on v6.1 didn't produce such lines. > > Is this change intentional? > In other words, is this patch series for a bugfix? > > > J. R. Okajima
