On 2/14/14, 4:24 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:41:16AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 2/14/14, 10:39 AM, David Sterba wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:55AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>> +cat /proc/mounts | grep "$SCRATCH_MNT" | grep relatime >> $seqres.full >>>>> +[ $? -ne 0 ] && echo "The relatime mount option should be the default." >>>> >>>> Ok, I guess "relatime" in /proc/mounts is from core vfs code and >>>> should be there for the foreseeable future, so seems ok. >>>> >>>> But - relatime was added in v2.6.20, and made default in 2.6.30. So >>>> testing older kernels may not go as expected; it'd probably be best to >>>> catch situations where relatime isn't available (< 2.6.20) or not >>>> default (< 2.6.30), by explicitly mounting with relatime, and skipping >>>> relatime/strictatime tests if that fails? >>> >>> Is there some consensus what's the lowest kernel version to be supported >>> by xfstests? 2.6.32 is the lowest base for kernels in use today, so >>> worrying about anything older does not seem necessary. >>> >> >> I don't know that it's been discussed - selfishly, I know our QE uses >> xfstests on RHEL5, which is 2.6.18-based. > > Sure, but they can just add the test to a "rhel5-expunged" file and > they don't have to care about tests that won't work on RHEL 5 or > other older kernels. Or to send patches to add "_requires_relatime" > so that it automatically does the right thing for older kernels. sure but some of this test is still valid on a kernel w/o relatime. And since it's the default, "relatime" might disappear from /proc/mounts some day anyway, so explicitly mounting with the option & failing if that fails might be good future-proofind in any case. *shrug* It was just a request, not a demand. :) Koen, you can do with it whatever you like. Reviews aren't ultimatums. :) If xfstests upstream is only targeted at the current kernel, that's fine, but maye we should make that a little more explicit. -Eric > Ultimately, upstream developers can't do all the work necessary to > support distros - that's why the distros have their own engineers > and QE to make sure the upstream code works correctly when they > backport it. xfstests is no different. ;) > > IOWs, if someone wants to run a modern test suite on a 7 year old > distro, then they need to make sure that the test suite does the > right thing for their distro. We'll take the patches that make it > work, but we can't expect upstream developers to know what old > distros require, let alone test and make stuff work on them... > > Just my 2c worth. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
