On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:08:46AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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 :(
Shouldn't e2fsck be fixed? i.e. if you have a corrupted filesystem
and it's missing lost+found, how are you expected to create it? by
mounting your corrupted filesystem and modifying it and potentially
making the corruption worse?
> (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?)
Stop it - we should be leaving a corpse that we can dissect to find
out what went wrong. For a corrupted scratch filesystem, running
another test will eat the slowly rotting corpse and leave nothing
useful behind for diagnosing the failure...