On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:08:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:44:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Run the cgroup writeback test on xfs, for which I've just posted > > a patch to support cgroup writeback as well as ext2 and f2fs, which > > have supported cgroup writeback for a while now. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/shared/011 | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/shared/011 b/tests/shared/011 > > index a0ac375d..96ce9d1c 100755 > > --- a/tests/shared/011 > > +++ b/tests/shared/011 > > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full > > # real QA test starts here > > > > # Modify as appropriate. > > -_supported_fs ext4 btrfs > > +_supported_fs ext2 ext4 f2fs btrfs xfs > > Per my comments in another e-mail thread, given how many of the > primary file systems support cgroup-aware writeback, maybe we should > just remove the _supported_fs line and move this test to generic? > > Whether we like it or not, there are more and more userspace tools > which assume that cgroup-aware writeback is a thing. > > Alternatively, maybe we should have some standardized way so the > kernel can signal whether or not a particular mounted file system > supports cgroup-aware writeback? I prefer this second option because I'd rather the test suite do the work to figure out if cgroup aware writeback is enabled and therefore worth testing rather than making everyone's QA department to add another conditional known-failure entry for when they want to run new fstests on some old LTS/distro kernel. --D > - Ted
