On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 04:53:56PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote: > On 2018-12-13, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:49:36PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote: > >> To expand on this, for each structure which my RFC patchset feeds up to > >> the native handler, I first checked them by manual inspection and then > >> double checked using the following program; we can compile with both > >> -mx32 and -m64 and check that the output is identical. > > > > So, turn that into an xfstest so that it is always run, diffs the > > output between compat/native depending on which one is used complete > > with guards that break the test when we add a new ioctl. We already > > we have a test that is for explicitly checking that structures on disk > > are the same for 32/64 bit architectures: tests/xfs/122 > [...] > > Then we'll have tests that will fail if we ever change an ioctl or > > add a new one and don't add it to the test. That guarantees we won't > > ever forget about this.... > > OK, I will give it a shot to implement such a test. A possible issue is > that developers might not have a working x32 build or runtime environment > so the test might not get run a lot. We generally test for the <thing> being supported first and only run the test if it is supported. for x86-64 systems, we should at least already support -m32/-m64, so we'll at least get coverage on that, and the reminder that... > But hopefully people adding brand > new ioctls don't introduce brand new compat problems; one can dream, right? ... introducing new ioctls need thought to ensure we don't introduce new compat problems :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
