On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:51:04PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 7:38 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > overlay/016 tests two cases of ro/rw fd data inconsistecies - > > one using pread and one using mmap read (i.e. mread). > > > > The first case now passes with stacked overlay file operations > > patch set merged. The second case will still fail. > > > > By splitting the two test cases we get one regression test for > > the common case of ro/rw fd data inconsistecy with pread and > > one test to track the remaining non-standard behavior of > > overlayfs w.r.t mmap. > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Eryu, > > > > The overlayfs ro/rw fd data inconsistecies patches were > > finally merged, so we can now merge this test change to > > reflect new behavior. > > > > After this change on current master: > > - overlay/16 is expected to pass > > - overlay/61 is expected to fail > > > > FYI, overlay/60 (new metacopy feature test) is also expected to > > run and pass on master. > > > > Eryu, > > More FYI from testing overlayfs over ext4/xfs on master: > - With base fs xfs, swap group tests crash the kernel - sent out a fix > - With base fs xfs, overlay/019 stress test hits lockdep "circular dependency" > and "downgrading a read lock" warnings - it seems like a 4.18-rc1 regression > I will need more time to investigate > - With base fs ext4, the 6 tests that do "_test_generic_punch -d" fail - > all expect for generic/009 are regressions from this cycle > > The above generic tests failures are the only failures I observed with > "check -overlay -g quick" apart from test that also fail on base fs > (e.g. generic/484). Thanks a lot for the detailed information! Eryu
