[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 09:27:50 +1100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <50B8DA0E.4000605@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <50B7B0AB.6040406@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121130160616.GD5667@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <50B8DA0E.4000605@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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...


Dave Chinner

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