On 8/4/23 23:47, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 05:36:50PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
Hi,
With the two patches applied, xfs/179 can pass in 5.10.188. Otherwise I got
[root@localhost xfstests]# ./check xfs/179
FSTYP -- xfs (non-debug)
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 localhost 5.10.188-default #14 SMP Thu Aug 3 15:23:19 CST 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f /dev/loop1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/scratch
xfs/179 1s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad)
--- tests/xfs/179.out 2023-07-13 16:12:27.000000000 +0800
+++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad 2023-08-03 16:55:38.173787911 +0800
@@ -8,3 +8,5 @@
Check scratch fs
Remove reflinked files
Check scratch fs
+xfs_repair fails
+(see /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.full for details)
...
(Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests/tests/xfs/179.out /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fix:
b25d1984aa88 xfs: estimate post-merge refcounts correctly
Ran: xfs/179
Failures: xfs/179
Failed 1 of 1 tests
Please review if they are approriate for 5.10 stable.
Seems fine to me, but ... there is no maintainer for 5.10; is your
employer willing to support this LTS kernel?
Hi Darrick,
Thanks for your review! I think Amir is the maintainer for 5.10 😉. I
can help
if needed since our kernel is heavily based on 5.10 stable. We also run
tests
against 5.10 stable, that is why I send fixes patches for it.
Hi Greg,
Could you consider add the two to your list? Thank you!
Regards,
Guoqing
