> > Darrick, > > > > This is my cue to insert a rant. You already know what I am going to rant about. > > > > I cannot force you to add a check -overlay xfstests run to your pull > > request validation > > routine. I can offer assistance in any questions you may have and I can offer > > support for check -overlay infrastructure if it breaks or if it needs > > improvements. > > > > I have checked on several recent point releases that check -overlay does not > > regress any tests compared to xfs reflink configuration, and when I > > found a regression > > (mostly in overlayfs code, but also in xfs code sometimes) I reported > > and/or fixed it. > > But I do not have the resources to validate every xfs merge and > > certainly not xfs-next. > > > > There is a large group of tests that is expected to notrun, which > > makes running the > > -overlay test a lot faster than any given xfs configuration and IMO > > running just a single > > xfs reflink config with -overlay would give a pretty good test coverage. > > > > So what do you say?... > > Frankly I'd rather push the kernelci/0day/lf/whoever folks to kick off > fstests across all the major filesystems after the daily for-next merge > so that we can all see if there are regressions over the previous day's > test. IOWs, rather than loading ourselves down with more testing > burden, let's make it more public. > > I've received occasional reports from the 0day robot, but I'm not sure > if it's testing consistently because it only ever seems to emit > complaints, not "I love your branch and even better nothing regressed!". > That would indeed be great if we had some more knowledge about what is being tested by 0day and friends. Regardless, check -overlay had already found several bugs in XFS code (I can look it up, but you know what I mean), so I argue that it would be beneficial to you as XFS maintainer and not only to overlayfs users if you run check -overlay on pull request branches. Consider overlayfs as a unit test for some of the XFS VFS interfaces that are harder (or impossible) to hit from userspace. Besides, as I said, the cost of running check -overlay on a single reflink config is relatively cheap, so please consider running it occasionally to be a head of those type of bugs. > That said, this *does* confirm Zorro's earlier point that I should give > him a week to test xfs for-next before pushing to Linus. > It looks like between Zorro and yourself, overlayfs+xfs bugs should not be slipping in to master anymore, so I'm happy with the way things are :-) Thanks, Amir.
