On 3/9/12 7:28 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> xfs mailing list