Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:18 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> To the group: Who's the appropriate person to handle these?
>>
>> Mahmoud: If the answer to the above is "???" or silence, would you be
>> willing to take on stable testing and maintenance?
Probably there is an answer now :). But Yes, I'm okay with doing that,
Xfstests is already part for our nightly 6.1 testing.
>
> Mahmoud,
>
> I assume that you are running xfstests on LTS kernels regularly?
> In that case, you should have an established baseline for failing/passing
> tests on 6.1.y.
> Did you run these backports against all tests to verify no regressions?
> If you did - then please include this information (also which xfs configurations
> were tested) in the posting of backport candidates to xfs list.
Yes, I did run the full xfstests to confirm no regression. we do
regularly run the latest stable xfstests version with loopback
setup. and we run 'xfs/quick' group over x86_64 & arm64 to catch any
regression. I'll make sure to post to xfs list first next time :)
our setup looks similar to this:
sudo fallocate -l 5G $MOUNT_POINT/block-xfs.img
sudo mkfs.xfs -f -m reflink=1 $MOUNT_POINT/block-xfs.img
sudo losetup -f $MOUNT_POINT/block-xfs.img
sudo mkdir -p $MOUNT_POINT/test
sudo mount /dev/loop0 $MOUNT_POINT/test
sudo fallocate -l 5G $MOUNT_POINT/block-xfs-scratch.img
sudo losetup -f $MOUNT_POINT/block-xfs-scratch.img
local.config:
export DISABLE_UDF_TEST=1
export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
export TEST_DIR=$MOUNT_POINT/test
export SCRATCH_MNT=$MOUNT_POINT/scratch
export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
Thanks,
MNAdam
