Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 10:37:47 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/2] update test_dummy_encryption testing in
 ext4/053
Message-ID: <YoUu60S2AjP2fEOk@sol.localdomain>
References: <20220501051928.540278-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <20220518141911.zg73znk2o2krxxwk@zlang-mailbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220518141911.zg73znk2o2krxxwk@zlang-mailbox>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:19:11PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:19:26PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > This series updates the testing of the test_dummy_encryption mount
> > option in ext4/053.
> > 
> > The first patch will be needed for the test to pass if the kernel patch
> > "ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported"
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220501050857.538984-2-ebiggers@kernel.org)
> > is applied.
> > 
> > The second patch starts testing a case that previously wasn't tested.
> > It reproduces a bug that was introduced in the v5.17 kernel and will
> > be fixed by the kernel patch
> > "ext4: fix up test_dummy_encryption handling for new mount API"
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220501050857.538984-6-ebiggers@kernel.org).
> > 
> > This applies on top of my recent patch
> > "ext4/053: fix the rejected mount option testing"
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220430192130.131842-1-ebiggers@kernel.org).
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> Your "ext4/053: fix the rejected mount option testing" has been merged. As the
> two kernel patches haven't been merged by upstream linux, I'd like to merge
> this patchset after the kernel patches be merged. (feel free to ping me, if
> I forget this:)

Yes, I'm waiting for them to be applied.

> 
> And I saw some discussion under this patchset, and no any RVB, so I'm wondering
> if you are still working/changing on it?
> 

I might add a check for kernel version >= 5.19 in patch 1.  Otherwise I'm not
planning any more changes.

- Eric