Re: generic/258 questions (mount issue)...

["Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@gmail.com>]

On 05/22/2013 12:19 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/22/13 11:15 AM, Michael L. Semon wrote:
>> On 05/22/2013 10:10 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> On 5/21/13 10:03 PM, Michael L. Semon wrote:

>> One day, I would like to earn git-log fame by incorporating better 
>> support for JFS and especially NILFS2 into xfstests.  However, 
>> that's a topic for another day.  I know that I have uses for both 
>> filesystems, but that doesn't mean anybody else does.  Their 
>> mailing lists don't give much hint of user community or progress.
> 
> The generic tests hopefully work; if not, it should be a fairly
> simple fixup.  And you're free to add fs-specific tests :)
> 
> (I'm not sure if we fall back by default to mkfs.$FSTYP and fsck.$FSTYP;
> if so, it might just work)
> 
> -Eric

They work fine--JFS currently survives all of generic/* intact--but...

JFS: The syntax for a lot of things is very close to that of ReiserFS, 
ext3, and ext4 filesystems.  However, before just inserting "jfs" into 
the common/rc case switches, test results need to be audited for JFS.  
Additionally, I don't know if the current tests use external journals 
for non-XFS filesystems:  My first attempt stepped all over the XFS 
journal creation script, looked messy, and was probably buggy as well.

NILFS2: fsstress/fsx seems to slowly rip NILFS2 to bits, and I have 
to come up with a narrower test and report bugs to those guys.  
common/rc could be revised to better target filesystems with no 
fsck whatsoever, such as NILFS2 and F2FS.  I've been getting by with 
a simple `ln -s /bin/true /sbin/fsck.nilfs2`, and really, that is the 
best long-term solution from an administrative standpoint.

So you see how this might be an easy fix but still take up hours in 
debugging...

Thanks again!

Michael

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