From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE11C001B0 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230502AbjFVQlE (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:41:04 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37022 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229853AbjFVQlC (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:41:02 -0400 Received: from forward500c.mail.yandex.net (forward500c.mail.yandex.net [178.154.239.208]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5C4B1BDF; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-91.sas.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-91.sas.yp-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c14:2991:0:640:bb47:0]) by forward500c.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 8927E5ED93; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:40:57 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-91.sas.yp-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id reJYePLDd8c0-cwfrBZLp; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:40:56 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1687452056; bh=LJlONBowRbEQkaAjE/9HnNNbTEAVVilEOjQDFjjRaRY=; h=From:In-Reply-To:Cc:Date:References:To:Subject:Message-ID; b=amcOrZR3/vGgEJBesBzTT0+7DVzpJ/1YvucHPxbxSXLPjsoXBvO5S3q803uycIm+C lX2FuDwmlnibR/tCYAbopZi3MB+LSwIY7FHBfdfK+mnXF+3XzjKQXO71FcZnAhwrl/ FQh5tarSoU9KAumLcNloPD1Kfg/5NxCpUsQEWVOI= Authentication-Results: mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-91.sas.yp-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru Message-ID: <7bbb29d2-4cae-48bd-1b97-9f4dbf6ffb19@yandex.ru> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 21:40:52 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: add OFD lock tests Content-Language: en-US To: Jeff Layton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Chuck Lever , Alexander Viro , Christian Brauner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org References: <20230621152214.2720319-1-stsp2@yandex.ru> <20230621152214.2720319-3-stsp2@yandex.ru> <4db7c65bee0739fe7983059296cfc95f20647fa3.camel@kernel.org> From: stsp In-Reply-To: <4db7c65bee0739fe7983059296cfc95f20647fa3.camel@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 22.06.2023 16:48, Jeff Layton пишет: > I'm not opposed to adding a selftest here, but most filesystem testing > is done via xfstests: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/ > > It would be better to add this test to the existing generic/478 test > that tests OFD locks. Can you patch that to add a test for the new > functionality? I don't actually think its possible. It seems like their script creates 2 t_ofd_locks processes, one for creating the lock, one for testing it. This is not our case. To make it work our way, we'd probably need to hack that test directly into t_ofd_locks.c, so that it can set and test from the same fd. And I don't know how to even run these tests. :) So I am really inclined to limit myself with a kernel selftest.