xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests - unchecked mount failures

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfstests - unchecked mount failures
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:41:57 -0600
In-reply-to: <20120309132828.GI4334@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20120309132828.GI4334@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
On 3/9/12 7:28 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've encountered a bad situation when a failed mount in test 269 did not stop
> the test and continued to use the mount point and exhausted space on the root
> partition. A quick grep revealed that there are more tests with unchecked
> _scratch_mount calls.
> 
> The underlying problem with failed mount was observed when the mount comes in 
> a
> quick sequence after mount, I saw it with btrfs, and don't know if it affects
> other filesystems.
> 
> So, either all callers should check the return value or _scratch_mount
> calls _fail. I'd go for the latter as it will make it more resilient
> against unintentional ommision of checking the retval in new tests and
> reviewer does not have keep that in mind.

Sounds good to me; _test_mount() should probably do the same?

I guess it'd be worth investigating exactly why it failed, though.

Still, if you'd like to send a patch to _fail in the mount helpers
if they fail, that sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks,
-Eric

> 
> david
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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