Re: [git pull] vfs.git sysv pile

[Fabio M. De Francesco]

On lunedì 20 marzo 2023 13:47:25 CEST Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 20-03-23 12:18:38, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > On giovedì 16 marzo 2023 11:30:21 CET Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > On giovedì 16 marzo 2023 10:00:35 CET Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Wed 15-03-23 19:08:57, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > > On mercoledì 1 marzo 2023 15:14:16 CET Al Viro wrote:

[snip]

> > > > > > I think I've pushed a demo patchset to vfs.git at some point back 
in
> > > > > > January... Yep - see #work.ext2 in there; completely untested,
> > > > > > though.

Al,

I reviewed and tested your patchset (please see below).

I think that you probably also missed Jan's last message about how you prefer 
they to be treated.

Jan asked you whether you will submit these patches or he should just pull 
your branch into his tree.

Please look below for my tags and Jan's question.

> > > > > 
> > > > > The following commits from the VFS tree, #work.ext2 look good to me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > f5b399373756 ("ext2: use offset_in_page() instead of open-coding it 
as
> > > > > subtraction")
> > > > > c7248e221fb5 ("ext2_get_page(): saner type")
> > > > > 470e54a09898 ("ext2_put_page(): accept any pointer within the page")
> > > > > 15abcc147cf7 ("ext2_{set_link,delete_entry}(): don't bother with
> > > 
> > > page_addr")
> > > 
> > > > > 16a5ee2027b7 ("ext2_find_entry()/ext2_dotdot(): callers don't need
> > > 
> > > page_addr
> > > 
> > > > > anymore")
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > 

[snip]
 
> > OK, I could finally run my tests to completion and had no crashes at all. 
I
> > ran "./check -g quick" on one "test" + three "scratch" loop devices
> > formatted
> > with "mkfs.ext2 -c". I ran three times _with_ and then three times 
_without_
> > Al's following patches cloned from his vfs tree, #work.ext2 branch:
> > 
> > f5b399373756 ("ext2: use offset_in_page() instead of open-coding it as
> > subtraction")
> > c7248e221fb5 ("ext2_get_page(): saner type")
> > 470e54a09898 ("ext2_put_page(): accept any pointer within the page")
> > 15abcc147cf7 ("ext2_{set_link,delete_entry}(): don't bother with 
page_addr")
> > 16a5ee2027b7 ("ext2_find_entry()/ext2_dotdot(): callers don't need
> > 
> > All the six tests were no longer killed by the Kernel :-)
> > 
> > I got 144 failures on 597 tests, regardless of the above listed patches.
> > 
> > My final conclusion is that these patches don't introduce regressions. I 
see
> > several tests that produce memory leaks but, I want to stress it again, 
the
> > failing tests are always the same with and without the patches.
> > 
> > therefore, I think that now I can safely add my tag to all five patches
> > listed above...
> > 
> > Tested-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks for the effort! Al, will you submit these patches or should I just
> pull your branch into my tree?
> 
> 								
Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR

Thanks,

Fabio