On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:43:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> Except fail_at_unmount, all EIO error handling can stop umount hanging
> on IO error too. This case only tested fail_at_unmount before, so add
> EIO/max_retries and EIO/retry_timeout_seconds test.
>
> Now this case test three situation when unmount hit EIO:
> 1) fail_at_unmount=1 && \
> EIO/max_retries=-1 && \
> EIO/retry_timeout_seconds=0
>
> 2) fail_at_unmount=0 && \
> EIO/max_retries=1 && \
> EIO/retry_timeout_seconds=0
>
> 3) fail_at_unmount=0 && \
> EIO/max_retries=-1 && \
> EIO/retry_timeout_seconds=1
>
> Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> There're three patches from Eric fix XFS error handling bugs:
> 5539d36 xfs: don't reset b_retries to 0 on every failure
> 0b4db5d xfs: remove extraneous buffer flag changes
> e97f6c5 xfs: fix xfs_error_get_cfg for negative errnos
>
> Without these patches, configurable error handling cannot be properly
> set, and once set is not honored.
>
> For test part of this bug, add EIO error handling test into xfs/006.
> The kernel with above 3 patches shouldn't hang on xfs/006.
>
> I haven't got an idea about how to test ENOSPC and default error
> handling. So use EIO test to prove above patches can work well
> on EIO handling at least.
Can you put this into a new test? We don't tend to extend tests to
add new cases, we add new tests instead. Factor the common parts of
the tests into generic functions in common/ somewhere and call them
from each test.
This way adding new test cases doesn't cause tests that previously
passed to fail and hence signal false regressions.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|