On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 08:19:10AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > 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. Agreed, a standard way to query cgroup-aware writeback support status would be the best. Thanks, Eryu > > --D > > > - Ted
