xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2

To: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0600
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130303235341.7470085e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1362269150-21478-1-git-send-email-richard@xxxxxx> <20130303011917.GI23616@dastard> <20130303100254.500b076f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5133C900.9050300@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130303231905.0efd6d08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5133D15A.9010600@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130303235341.7470085e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
On 3/3/13 4:53 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:

>> Anyway, what if you did something more along the lines of [pseudocode]
>>
>> ocfs2)
>>      if mounted.ocfs2 -f $TEST-DEV | frob_as_necessary[1]
>>              ;
>>      else
>>              fsck.ocfs2 $TEST-DEV
>>      fi
>>      ;;
>>
>> so that *if* it's mounted on some other node, the fsck won't run.
>> That has downsides as Dave mentioned, but for the case where the
>> xfstests node is the only one with it in use, it'll still do the
>> beneficial consistency check.
>>
>> Just tweaking the fsck action bsed on *if* it's mounted (or,
>> maybe, if the node is in a cluster?) might be a more generic solution
>> that is widely applicable to all ocfs2 test environments.
> 
> Good point. mounted.ocfs2 really makes sense. I'll implement this on my
> test suite and submit a new patch.

Sounds good to me.

It'd be most preferable to do a cluster-wide unmount and fsck,
but if that's unfeasible, then skipping the fsck (with a warning) is
still preferable to simply disabling it outright for everyone.

Thanks,
-Eric


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