From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfstests: loop devices vs umount stupidity
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:27:06 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120816222706.GW2877@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <502D470C.6070506@sgi.com>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:16:28PM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 03:35 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >
> >Unmounting a fileystem mounted on a loop device doesn't always tear
> >down the loop device. Its racy, and it causes tests to randomly
> >fail.
> >
> >To avoid that, we have to use umount -d to ensure that we destroy
> >loop devices under filesystems in case the kernel doesn't tear it
> >down automatically to prevent the test from failing. However, if
> >the kernel does tear it down automatically, umount now issues a
> >warning that it couldn't tear down the loop device because it
> >couldn't find it, and that causes the test to fail. *facepalm*
> >
> >So, convert all the loop device unmounts to use -d, and direct the
> >output of all of them to /dev/null.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
.....
>
> Test 250 Fails but a bug is already created for this, PV1026237.
News to me. Recording failures in non-public bug trackers, and then
alluding to it via a number that nobody can look up is not very
helpful. If you are going to track mainline kernel
failures/regressions in a bug tracker, please use the oss.sgi.com
bugzilla so that the issues are publicly visible....
> Other than that it looks good and the bug is not related to this
> patch, so ...
.... what is the failure you are seeing?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-16 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-26 8:35 [PATCH 0/4] xfstests: random fixes and improvements Dave Chinner
2012-07-26 8:35 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfstests: test 110 sometimes fails to unmount scratch dev Dave Chinner
2012-08-16 19:16 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-08-28 20:20 ` Ben Myers
2012-07-26 8:35 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfstests: loop devices vs umount stupidity Dave Chinner
2012-08-16 19:16 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-16 22:27 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-08-17 12:45 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:35 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfstests: _check_quota_usage needs to unmount to get XFS quotacheck Dave Chinner
2012-07-26 22:55 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-16 19:16 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:35 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfstests: speed up 227 by using preallocation Dave Chinner
2012-08-16 19:16 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-08-14 21:39 ` [PATCH 0/4] xfstests: random fixes and improvements Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120816222706.GW2877@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=rjohnston@sgi.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.