Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:08:04 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Eryu Guan <eguan@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>, tytso@mit.edu,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, chenlong <chenlongcl.chen@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group?
Message-ID: <20220126073804.qtrzaru4v2dhgagm@riteshh-domain>
References: <cover.1643089143.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220125074325.GB12255@e18g06458.et15sqa>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220125074325.GB12255@e18g06458.et15sqa>
Precedence: bulk

On 22/01/25 03:43PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:32:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > Hello Zhang/Ted,
> >
> > Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection
> > testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
> >
> > Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
> >
> > Meanwhile, I was thinking we should anyway remove auto and quick group from this
> > test as it could trigger a bug on in older kernel targets. Thoughts?
>
> IMO, ext4/054 is a targeted regression test and should be in auto group,
> which ensures the bug doesn't get re-introduced in future.

Yes, I agree with it.

>
> I think you could just skip this test to fit your kernel version, e.g.
>
> echo ext4/054 > ext4.exclude
> ./check -X ext4.exclude

Sure, thanks Eryu.

-ritesh