xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: shared/032 is broken on Fedora

To: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: shared/032 is broken on Fedora
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:50:53 -0600
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <54DB35F0.1010203@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <54DB35F0.1010203@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(cc: fstests list) 

On 2/11/15 4:58 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> 
> This is not the proper patch just to show a working version for Fedora. But I 
> think
> it now breaks the other ARCHs.
> 
> What happens is that the output of ${MKFS_PROG}.* is:
>       /usr/sbin/mkfs.bfs /usr/sbin/mkfs.btrfs /usr/sbin/mkfs.cramfs 
> /usr/sbin/mkfs.ext2 /usr/sbin/mkfs.ext3 /usr/sbin/mkfs.ext4 ...
> 
> So in Fedora sbin has moved to /usr/... and therefor the sed below fails.
> My sed foo is not good enough. How to support both places for sbin?

All we really want is the mkfs filesystem type, i.e. the ${FS} in mkfs.${FS}

So 

sed -e 's/.*mkfs.//g'

should work,

awk -F . '{print $NF}' would work too

$ cat mkfses 
/usr/sbin/mkfs.ext4
/sbin/mkfs.ext4

$ cat mkfses | awk -F . '{print $NF}'
ext4
ext4

$ cat mkfses | sed -e 's/.*mkfs.//g'
ext4
ext4

> Also why the "_supported_fs xfs btrfs"? So if all those other mkfs.* that are 
> destructive to
> foreign filesystem, should the test not fail instead of skipped?

mkfs.xfs & mkfs.btrfs are the only filesystems I know of which check for
an existing format before proceeding, so they are the only ones
tested.  Any other fs is skipped, because they are not designed to
do what this test is... testing for.

> Maybe if the maintainers of all these filesystems day in and day out running 
> xfstests and
> see shared/032 failing, they might decide to fix their evil ways. Instead of 
> skipping the
> test and the said maintainer just ignores it?

I think it's just a design decision.  There's no actual requirement to warn 
about overwriting
a format, so not doing so is not a failure or a bug, IMHO.

-Eric

> Thanks
> Boaz
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/tests/shared/032 b/tests/shared/032
> index a410003..726e6b4 100755
> --- a/tests/shared/032
> +++ b/tests/shared/032
> @@ -37,8 +37,8 @@ rm -f $seqres.full
>  . ./common/filter
>  
>  # real QA test starts here
> -_supported_fs xfs btrfs
> +# _supported_fs xfs btrfs
>  _supported_os Linux
>  
>  _require_scratch_nocheck
>  _require_no_large_scratch_dev
> @@ -49,8 +49,7 @@ if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then
>               _notrun "Installed mkfs.btrfs does not support -f option"
>  fi
>  
> -echo "Silence is golden."
> -for fs in `echo ${MKFS_PROG}.* | sed -e 's/.sbin.mkfs.//g'`
> +for fs in `echo ${MKFS_PROG}.* | sed -e 's/.usr\/sbin.mkfs.//g'`
>  do
>       preop=""        # for special input needs
>       preargs=""      # for any special pre-device options
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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