xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:08:46 -0600
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20121130160616.GD5667@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <50B7B0AB.6040406@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121130160616.GD5667@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
On 11/30/12 10:06 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> This will cause the $SCRATCH_DEV to be fscked if it
>> was used in the prior test.  Without this I don't
>> think it gets done unless specifically requested
>> by the test.
> 
> This one looks good.

Hm now that I think of it perhaps I should remove the explicit 
_check_scratch-es if they happen at the end of the run, just to try to speed 
things up.

>> Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck
>> doesn't complain.
> 
> This one I can't make any sense of.  Care to send it separately with a
> good explanation?
> 

Ok, sure.

Basically, test does an rm -rf of the scrach mnt, but e2fsck thinks that a 
missing lost+found/ is cause for complaint and a failure exit code, which then 
stops the tests :(

(hum, now that I think about it, maybe a broken scratch device shouldn't stop 
the test series, but should just log a test failure?  What do you think?)

-Eric

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