On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 10:03:12AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 09:26:24AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > Zorro, > > > > Please pull this branch, which includes test cases for sysfs syntax > > verification of btrfs read policy and chunk size. v4 has been on the > > mailing list for a month now, along with fix from Filipe and Zoned > > testcase from Johannes. > > > > Please note that the commit: > > "fstests: btrfs: zoned: verify RAID conversion with write pointer mismatch" > > > > has the changes discussed with Naohiro, including his review-by tag, > > (which is missing in your patches-in-queue branch). > > > > Test case number for above commit is changed to btrfs/335 following > > the integration of the sysfs patches. > > > > Thank you. > > > > The following changes since commit d71157da4ef4cfdbf39e2c4a07f8013633e6bcbe: > > > > common/rc: explicitly test for engine availability in _require_fio (2025-03-17 00:43:12 +0800) > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > https://github.com/asj/fstests/tree/staged-20250328 > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 208a7f874df38bf873137d00634783422965a7ab: > > > > fstests: btrfs: zoned: verify RAID conversion with write pointer mismatch (2025-03-28 08:25:55 +0800) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Anand Jain (5): > > fstests: common/rc: set_fs_sysfs_attr: redirect errors to stdout > > fstests: filter: helper for sysfs error filtering > > fstests: common/rc: add sysfs argument verification helpers > > fstests: btrfs: testcase for sysfs policy syntax verification > > fstests: btrfs: testcase for sysfs chunk_size attribute validation > > Hi Anand, these 5 patches don't have any RVBs or ACKs. Do you miss that? > Although you can ack patches by yourself, but these patches are from you, > maintainers would better not push their own patches directly without any > RVBs. So please let someone review and ack them at first. Maintainers should be allowed to push their patches without RVB, that's where the role and status adds value. In case of the generic/common patches there was a discusison and an agreed solution, only the formal RVB were missing. And in case of fstests it's IMNSHO an overkill, we rather need the functional improvements, i.e. new test cases for the specific filesystem without pointless delays and insisiting on reviews or not trusting a dedicated maintainer with their own patches.
