On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 09:14:50AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 06:00:29PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:14:10AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:40:47AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:45:42AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Adjust this test since made EFI/EFD log item format structs proper flex > > > > > arrays instead of array[1]. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > So we let this case fail on all older system/kernel? Is the kernel patch > > > > recommended to be merged on downstream kernel? > > > > > > Yes, since there are certain buggy compilers that mishandle the array > > > size computation. Prior to the introduction of xfs_ondisk.h, they were > > > silently writing out filesystem structures that would not be recognized > > > by more mainstream systems (e.g. x86). > > > > > > OFC nearly all those reports about buggy compilers are for tiny > > > architectures that XFS doesn't work well on anyways, so in practice it > > > hasn't created any user problems (AFAIK). > > > > Thanks, may you provide this detailed explanation in commit log, and better > > to point out the kernel commits which is related with this testing change. > > Will do. > > > Due to this case isn't a case for a known issue, I think it might be no > > suitable to add _fixed_by_kernel_commit in this case, but how about giving > > more details in commit log. > > Er.... xfs/122 isn't a regression test, so it's not testing previously > broken and now fixed code. While I sense that a few peoples' > understanding of _fixed_by_kernel_commit might be constrained to "if > this test fails, check that your kernel/*fsprogs have commit XXXXX", I > myself have started `grep _fixed_by_kernel_commit' to find bug fixes and > their related regression tests to suggest backports. I generally check _fixed_by_*, secondly check the comments in the code and the commit log related with the case. > > ...although I wonder if perhaps we should have a second set of > _by_commit helpers that encode "not a regression test, but you might > check such-and-such commit"? Yeah, the "fixed_by" sounds not precise for xfs/122. Maybe "_cover_commit" or some better names you have :) Thanks, Zorro > > --D > > > Thanks, > > Zorro > > > > > > > > --D > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Zorro > > > > > > > > > tests/xfs/122.out | 8 ++++---- > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/122.out b/tests/xfs/122.out > > > > > index a56cbee84f..95e53c5081 100644 > > > > > --- a/tests/xfs/122.out > > > > > +++ b/tests/xfs/122.out > > > > > @@ -161,10 +161,10 @@ sizeof(xfs_disk_dquot_t) = 104 > > > > > sizeof(xfs_dq_logformat_t) = 24 > > > > > sizeof(xfs_dqblk_t) = 136 > > > > > sizeof(xfs_dsb_t) = 264 > > > > > -sizeof(xfs_efd_log_format_32_t) = 28 > > > > > -sizeof(xfs_efd_log_format_64_t) = 32 > > > > > -sizeof(xfs_efi_log_format_32_t) = 28 > > > > > -sizeof(xfs_efi_log_format_64_t) = 32 > > > > > +sizeof(xfs_efd_log_format_32_t) = 16 > > > > > +sizeof(xfs_efd_log_format_64_t) = 16 > > > > > +sizeof(xfs_efi_log_format_32_t) = 16 > > > > > +sizeof(xfs_efi_log_format_64_t) = 16 > > > > > sizeof(xfs_error_injection_t) = 8 > > > > > sizeof(xfs_exntfmt_t) = 4 > > > > > sizeof(xfs_exntst_t) = 4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
