Re: [PATCH 01/17] xfsprogs: use common code for multi-disk detection

[Jan Tulak <jtulak@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>

> At one point during development of this patch set I started writing
> an xfstest to validate that mkfs did all the right input validation
> things and set parameters appropriately so that we didn't
> inadvertently change behaviour. I never really finished it off (like
> the patch set), but I've attached it below to give an idea of where
> I was going with it. It was based on validating the input and CLI
> parameters for the new code, so is guaranteed to fail on an existing
> mkfs binary.


I'm using and extending it, but I'm not sure about some tests, whether it is a change from current behaviour, or if it is rather an issue in the test.

> +
> +# basic "should fail" options
> +# logarithm based options are no longer valid
> +do_mkfs_fail -s log=9 $SCRATCH_DEV

There are some changes in logarithm input (mkfs: validate logarithmic parameters sanely), but it is still supported in the patches. Is there some issue, why to remove them?
Otherwise, it should rather test for (in)valid input for log=xxx, right?

> +rm -f $fsimg
> +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "truncate $fssize" $fsimg
> +do_mkfs_pass -d file $fsimg
> +do_mkfs_pass -d file,name=$fsimg
> +rm -f $fsimg
> +do_mkfs_pass -d size=$fssize,file $fsimg
> +rm -f $fsimg
> +do_mkfs_pass -d size=$fssize,file,name=$fsimg
> +do_mkfs_pass -d file,name=$fsimg

Should all these inputs really pass? What is the expected behaviour for example on -d file,name=$fsimg if the file exists, and what if there is no such file? 

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
Jan Tulak
jtulak@redhat.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs