On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:48:29AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:06:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > Kernel stable team, > > > > > > here is a v2 respin of my XFS stable patches for v4.19.y. The only > > > change in this series is adding the upstream commit to the commit log, > > > and I've now also Cc'd stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as well. No other issues > > > were spotted or raised with this series. > > > > > > Reviews, questions, or rants are greatly appreciated. > > > > Test results? > > > > The set of changes look fine themselves, but as always, the proof is > > in the testing... > > I've first established a baseline for v4.19.18 with fstests using > a series of different sections to test against. I annotated the > failures on an expunge list and then use that expunge list to confirm > no regressions -- no failures if we skip the failures already known for > v4.19.18. > > Each different configuration I test against I use a section for. I only > test x86_64 for now but am starting to create a baseline for ppc64le. > > The sections I use: > > * xfs > * xfs_nocrc > * xfs_nocrc_512 > * xfs_reflink > * xfs_reflink_1024 > * xfs_logdev > * xfs_realtimedev Yup, that seems to cover most common things :) > The xfs_logdev and xfs_realtimedev sections use an external log, and as > I have noted before it seems works is needed to rule out an actual > failure. Yeah, there are many tests that don't work properly with external devices, esp. RT devices. That's a less critical area to cover, but it's still good to run it :) Thanks, Luis! -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
