xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test for atime-related mount options

To: dsterba@xxxxxxx, Koen De Wit <koen.de.wit@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test for atime-related mount options
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:41:16 -0600
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140214163925.GW16073@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1392305016-7424-1-git-send-email-koen.de.wit@xxxxxxxxxx> <52FCF60F.6030703@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20140214163925.GW16073@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
On 2/14/14, 10:39 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:55AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> +cat /proc/mounts | grep "$SCRATCH_MNT" | grep relatime >> $seqres.full
>>> +[ $? -ne 0 ] && echo "The relatime mount option should be the default."
>>
>> Ok, I guess "relatime" in /proc/mounts is from core vfs code and
>> should be there for the foreseeable future, so seems ok.
>>
>> But - relatime was added in v2.6.20, and made default in 2.6.30.  So
>> testing older kernels may not go as expected; it'd probably be best to
>> catch situations where relatime isn't available (< 2.6.20) or not
>> default (< 2.6.30), by explicitly mounting with relatime, and skipping
>> relatime/strictatime tests if that fails?
> 
> Is there some consensus what's the lowest kernel version to be supported
> by xfstests? 2.6.32 is the lowest base for kernels in use today, so
> worrying about anything older does not seem necessary.
> 

I don't know that it's been discussed - selfishly, I know our QE uses
xfstests on RHEL5, which is 2.6.18-based.

-Eric

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>