From: Eric Sandeen <esandeen@redhat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: avoid ext4/306 failures caused by incompatible mount options
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:43:59 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E9761F.7070903@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140129213838.GF30419@thunk.org>
On 1/29/14, 3:38 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:45:02PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote:
>> ext4/306 will fail when mounting the ext3 file system it creates if an
>> ext3-incompatible mount option is applied by _scratch_mount. This can
>> happen if EXT_MOUNT_OPTIONS is defined appropriately in the test
>> environment. For example, the block_validity option is commonly used
>> to enhance ext4 testing, and it is not supported by ext3. Fix this by
>> not including any mount options defined by the test environment.
>
> I'm not sure I understand why the test is insisting that the file
> system be mounted using ext3. If the file system is created without
> the extents flag, all of the files will be created using indirect
> blocks, and fundamentally what this test is getting at is that after
> we grow the file system using resize2fs, the new blocks are available
> to be allocated and attached to an indirect block file.
>
> We can do this by using ext4; I'm not sure why this test is trying to
> use ext3 to set up the test flie system. It might be better to get
> rid of the requirement to create the file system using ext3, since it
> will make the test runnable even if the ext3 file system hasn't been
> configured into the system and CONFIG_EXT23_AS_EXT4 is not enabled.
>
> IIRC, Eric Sandeen wrote this test --- Eric, am I missing some reason
> why it was necessary to use ext3 here?
Nope. Tomayto, tomahto - I think the original report had trouble with
an ext3 filesystem, so that's how I wrote the testcase.
It could be fixed either way, I think.
-Eric
>
> - Ted
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Sandeen <esandeen@redhat.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: avoid ext4/306 failures caused by incompatible mount options
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:43:59 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E9761F.7070903@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140129213838.GF30419@thunk.org>
On 1/29/14, 3:38 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:45:02PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote:
>> ext4/306 will fail when mounting the ext3 file system it creates if an
>> ext3-incompatible mount option is applied by _scratch_mount. This can
>> happen if EXT_MOUNT_OPTIONS is defined appropriately in the test
>> environment. For example, the block_validity option is commonly used
>> to enhance ext4 testing, and it is not supported by ext3. Fix this by
>> not including any mount options defined by the test environment.
>
> I'm not sure I understand why the test is insisting that the file
> system be mounted using ext3. If the file system is created without
> the extents flag, all of the files will be created using indirect
> blocks, and fundamentally what this test is getting at is that after
> we grow the file system using resize2fs, the new blocks are available
> to be allocated and attached to an indirect block file.
>
> We can do this by using ext4; I'm not sure why this test is trying to
> use ext3 to set up the test flie system. It might be better to get
> rid of the requirement to create the file system using ext3, since it
> will make the test runnable even if the ext3 file system hasn't been
> configured into the system and CONFIG_EXT23_AS_EXT4 is not enabled.
>
> IIRC, Eric Sandeen wrote this test --- Eric, am I missing some reason
> why it was necessary to use ext3 here?
Nope. Tomayto, tomahto - I think the original report had trouble with
an ext3 filesystem, so that's how I wrote the testcase.
It could be fixed either way, I think.
-Eric
>
> - Ted
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-29 21:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-29 20:45 [PATCH] xfstests: avoid ext4/306 failures caused by incompatible mount options Eric Whitney
2014-01-29 20:45 ` Eric Whitney
2014-01-29 21:38 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-01-29 21:38 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-01-29 21:43 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2014-01-29 21:43 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-01-29 21:48 ` Kodiak Furr
2014-01-31 15:47 ` Eric Whitney
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=52E9761F.7070903@redhat.com \
--to=esandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=enwlinux@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--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.