[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bgtrbxzrwih2j2bgoanwf5sgl4go5xy6fxnvknkgnugqtkl5pt@iy6bcuqrx5ku>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 09:56:07 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Zorro Lang <zlang@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>,
fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Avoid failing shutdown tests without a journal
On Fri 13-02-26 00:44:02, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 11:41:59AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > I initially considered calling _require_metadata_journaling directly inside
> > > _require_scratch_shutdown. However, I decided against it because some cases might
> > > only need the shutdown ioctl and don't strictly require a journal.
> >
> > Absolutely. I think they should stay separate.
> >
> > So to summarize I think we should still add _require_metadata_journaling to:
> >
> > overlay/087
> > g/536
> > g/622
> > g/722
>
> Agree :)
Should I send patches or will you do this modification?
> > and we might add fsync of parent directory before shutdown to g/737 and
> > overlay/078. Does this sound good?
>
> I'm concerned that adding broader sync or fsync operations might interfere with the
> test's original intent. We should probably evaluate the impact further. Alternatively,
> we could simply use _require_metadata_journaling to ensure we at least keep the
> coverage for the original bug :)
I agree with the approach to just leave the test as is for now and invest time
into deciding what's the proper solution once someone complains :)
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists