On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:12:22AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: [snip] > > > > > Do you think that should there be a different policy w.r.t timing of > > > merging xfstests tests that fail on upstream kernel? > > > > That's my opinion, and generic/484 is the best argument for why we > > should wait. Other people may have other opinions though, and I have > > a workaround, so I don't feel super-strong about it. (generic/454 is > > now the second test in my global exclude file. :-) > > I don't see generic/454 failing with ext4 (I'm testing with default > mkfs/mount options, kernel is 5.2-rc2). But IMHO, I think generic/454 is Oh, I see, I think you meant generic/554 not generic/454 (thanks Darrick for pointing that out :) > different, it's not a targeted regression test, it's kind of generic > test that should work for all filesystems. > > > > > At the very *least* there should be a comment in the test that fix is > > pending, and might not be applied yet, with a URL to the mailing list > > discussion. That will save effort when months (years?) go by, and the > > fix still hasn't landed the upstream kernel.... > > Agreed, I've been making sure there's a comment referring to the fix or > pending fix (e.g. only commit summary no hash ID) for such targeted > regression tests. And I took generic/55[34] as generic tests not targeted regression test. But looks like it's better to reference the fixes anyway. Amir, would you mind adding such references to generic/55[34] as well? Thanks, Eryu
