Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 08:49:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 05:10:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The user-space FUSE thing does indeed work reasonably well.
> > 
> > It performs horribly badly if you care about things like that, though.
> > 
> > In fact, your own numbers kind of show that:
> > 
> >   ntfs/default: 670 tests, 55 failures, 211 skipped, 34783 seconds
> >   ntfs3/default: 664 tests, 67 failures, 206 skipped, 8106 seconds
> > 
> > and that's kind of the point of ntfs3.
> 
> Sure, although if you run fstress in parallel ntfs3 will lock up, the
> system hard, and it has at least one lockdep deadlock complaints.
> It's not up to me, but personally, I'd feel better if *someone* at
> Paragon Software responded to Darrrick and my queries about their
> quality assurance, and/or made commitments that they would at least
> *try* to fix the problems that about 5 minutes of testing using
> fstests turned up trivially.

<cough> Yes, my aim was to gauge their interest in actively QAing the
driver's current problems so that it doesn't become one of the shabby
Linux filesystem drivers, like <cough>ntfs.

Note I didn't even ask for a particular percentage of passing tests,
because I already know that non-Unix filesystems fail the tests that
look for the more Unix-specific behaviors.

I really only wanted them to tell /us/ what the baseline is.  IMHO the
silence from them is a lot more telling.  Both generic/013 and
generic/475 are basic "try to create files and read and write data to
them" exercisers; failing those is a red flag.

--D

> I can even give them patches and configsto make it trivially easy for
> them to run fstests using KVM or GCE....
> 
> 				- Ted