xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: avoid ext4/306 failures caused by incompatible mou

To: sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: avoid ext4/306 failures caused by incompatible mount options
From: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:47:51 -0500
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=xg0+GR2bz9ANwHcF4c+P7+tKuXXmNhJrvExsxHZ9qaE=; b=U76w9NZYOqDRZzlADlvL0oDipyi/rRgtUiROXpv4F0quhTlsOXLPXgjrqWSGb7GelI 1fBSyNg/Vh07JLf8wU4slcyQutJXbW6ygcCwO6jstblxP+rkP2odDSf6BdPl8IQ3PF6M OI0W33Gdtf+Iw7PaS6vWJovM7RxOEAIA3lLhGTKf3E0g0n7i4yOLhFM95I4ZtIAYkM7K wEzGZj8oYHs4wbomTOW6BDXkoT3q9IpwE+/N//vYiSulIwzvApEhIYjCWCtXxN3TxN9r Eg/9n9mUYtqPJGkMYAXcyXyC6Qbhr4HZG+7hfOEDjPRaWQZ5lEpUbCm1TSv6/SZlWxPO 1dRQ==
In-reply-to: <52E9761F.7070903@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20140129204502.GC2165@wallace> <20140129213838.GF30419@xxxxxxxxx> <52E9761F.7070903@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
* Eric Sandeen <esandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 1/29/14, 3:38 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:45:02PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote:
> >> ext4/306 will fail when mounting the ext3 file system it creates if an
> >> ext3-incompatible mount option is applied by _scratch_mount.  This can
> >> happen if EXT_MOUNT_OPTIONS is defined appropriately in the test
> >> environment.  For example, the block_validity option is commonly used
> >> to enhance ext4 testing, and it is not supported by ext3.  Fix this by
> >> not including any mount options defined by the test environment.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand why the test is insisting that the file
> > system be mounted using ext3.  If the file system is created without
> > the extents flag, all of the files will be created using indirect
> > blocks, and fundamentally what this test is getting at is that after
> > we grow the file system using resize2fs, the new blocks are available
> > to be allocated and attached to an indirect block file.
> > 
> > We can do this by using ext4; I'm not sure why this test is trying to
> > use ext3 to set up the test flie system.  It might be better to get
> > rid of the requirement to create the file system using ext3, since it
> > will make the test runnable even if the ext3 file system hasn't been
> > configured into the system and CONFIG_EXT23_AS_EXT4 is not enabled.
> > 
> > IIRC, Eric Sandeen wrote this test --- Eric, am I missing some reason
> > why it was necessary to use ext3 here?
> 
> Nope.  Tomayto, tomahto - I think the original report had trouble with
> an ext3 filesystem, so that's how I wrote the testcase.
> 
> It could be fixed either way, I think.
> 

If using ext3 doesn't add any additional value to the test, using ext4
instead certainly simplifies it.  I'll post a V2 shortly.

Thanks,
Eric


> -Eric
> 
> > 
> >                                     - Ted
> > 
> 

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