xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfstests: loop devices vs umount stupidity

To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfstests: loop devices vs umount stupidity
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:27:06 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <502D470C.6070506@xxxxxxx>
References: <1343291706-14882-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1343291706-14882-3-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <502D470C.6070506@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:16:28PM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 03:35 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >Unmounting a fileystem mounted on a loop device doesn't always tear
> >down the loop device. Its racy, and it causes tests to randomly
> >fail.
> >
> >To avoid that, we have to use umount -d to ensure that we destroy
> >loop devices under filesystems in case the kernel doesn't tear it
> >down automatically to prevent the test from failing.  However, if
> >the kernel does tear it down automatically, umount now issues a
> >warning that it couldn't tear down the loop device because it
> >couldn't find it, and that causes the test to fail. *facepalm*
> >
> >So, convert all the loop device unmounts to use -d, and direct the
> >output of all of them to /dev/null.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
.....
> 
> Test 250 Fails but a bug is already created for this, PV1026237.

News to me. Recording failures in non-public bug trackers, and then
alluding to it via a number that nobody can look up is not very
helpful.  If you are going to track mainline kernel
failures/regressions in a bug tracker, please use the oss.sgi.com
bugzilla so that the issues are publicly visible....

> Other than that it looks good and the bug is not related to this
> patch, so ...

.... what is the failure you are seeing?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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