On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 11:15:25AM +0200, Mahmoud Adam wrote: > 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 So does this mean we should take these for stable inclusion, or are they going to need some other tests/acks for us to be able to do this? thanks, greg k-h
