xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfstests: do not unmount tmpfs during remount.

To: Junho Ryu <jayr@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfstests: do not unmount tmpfs during remount.
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:41:31 +1100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Boris Ranto <branto@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAFA30n9ea3A+V7JgCgqO5xOQchgB55oLP4AgtQ3KQpCMr9iEzQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1386706321-15795-1-git-send-email-jayr@xxxxxxxxxx> <1386706321-15795-6-git-send-email-jayr@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131211074615.GE19248@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131211224012.GJ10988@dastard> <20131212180130.GA19422@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131212225657.GK10988@dastard> <CAFA30n9ea3A+V7JgCgqO5xOQchgB55oLP4AgtQ3KQpCMr9iEzQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 04:00:44PM -0800, Junho Ryu wrote:
> > I don't know what the solution here is - everything I think of is
> > either messy, ugly or unmaintainable. All I'm trying to do is find a
> > way to handle tmpfs filesystems in a way that is maintainable and
> > doesn't require every developer to be aware of the quirks of tmpfs
> > when writing and reviewing new generic tests....
> 
> If it is acceptable that tmpfs running tests which does not make much
> sense without actually re-mounting devices, all other developers need
> to care is using _scratch_remount() and _test_remount().

And how are they to know whether it makes sense ot run on tmpfs or
not? That's the point I'm trying to make - tmpfs adds new
restrictions on how tests are written or constructed, and we still
need a method of saying no to tmpfs....

> Even if someone does not use the functions, tests will only fail on
> tmpfs, and people like me who cares about it will be happy to fix it.

Yes, that's the game of whack-a-mole I was talking about.

> So far, generic/053 is the only test which does something else between
> umount and mount.

All the generic tests that use dm_flakey are likely to be busted.
Anything assumes SCRATCH_DEV or TEST_DEV are block devices are
busted. Do loop devices work properly when hosted on tmpfs
filesystems? And so on...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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