xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfstests: test quota log replay in 087

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfstests: test quota log replay in 087
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:02:56 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100110212619.GA30907@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100110212619.GA30907@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 04:26:19PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> By mounting the filesystem with quotas enabled in 087 we exercise the
> replay of the quota log items in this tests, which we otherwise don't
> test in xfstests.  OSS bugzilla #855 is an example of something caught
> by this.
> 
> Does this look okay, or should I add a duplicate of 
> 087 with quotas enabled instead?

I think having 087 cover quotas as well is fine. Adding a separate
test just for quotas doesn't provide any extra coverage compared to
this patch.


> @@ -98,7 +100,7 @@ do
>  
>      # mount the FS
>      _echofull "mount"
> -    if ! _scratch_mount >>$seq.full 2>&1; then
> +    if ! _scratch_mount -o uquota >>$seq.full 2>&1; then

My only question is whether this will work if uquota is set up as a
global option. I haven't looked into it yet, but there appears to be
several different ways that uquota is specified in other tests:

052:_qmount_option uquota
108:export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-ouquota"
116:mount -o uquota $SCRATCH_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT
220:_scratch_mount -o uquota

Some consistency would be nice, but I don't think it's a problem
for this patch right now.

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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