Re: [PATCH] check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE

[Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>]

Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 02:22:20PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>> 
>> On 1/13/25 11:29, Zorro Lang wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 03:21:51PM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>> > > Bug Description:
>> > > 
>> > > _test_mount function is failing with the following error:
>> > > ./common/rc: line 4716: _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown: command not found
>> > > check: failed to mount /dev/loop0 on /mnt1/test
>> > > 
>> > > when the second section in local.config file is xfs and the first section
>> > > is non-xfs.
>> > > 
>> > > It can be easily reproduced with the following local.config file
>> > > 
>> > > [s2]
>> > > export FSTYP=ext4
>> > > export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
>> > > export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test
>> > > export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
>> > > export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch
>> > > 
>> > > [s1]
>> > > export FSTYP=xfs
>> > > export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
>> > > export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test
>> > > export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
>> > > export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch
>> > > 
>> > > ./check selftest/001
>> > > 
>> > > Root cause:
>> > > When _test_mount() is executed for the second section, the FSTYPE has
>> > > already changed but the new fs specific common/$FSTYP has not yet
>> > > been done. Hence _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown() is not found and
>> > > the test run fails.
>> > > 
>> > > Fix:
>> > > call _source_specific_fs $FSTYP at the correct call site of  _test_mount()
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Nirjhar Roy (IBM) <nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >   check | 1 +
>> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> > > 
>> > > diff --git a/check b/check
>> > > index 607d2456..8cdbb68f 100755
>> > > --- a/check
>> > > +++ b/check
>> > > @@ -776,6 +776,7 @@ function run_section()
>> > >   	if $RECREATE_TEST_DEV || [ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]; then
>> > >   		echo "RECREATING    -- $FSTYP on $TEST_DEV"
>> > >   		_test_unmount 2> /dev/null
>> > > +		[[ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]] && _source_specific_fs $FSTYP
>> > The _source_specific_fs is called when importing common/rc file:
>> > 
>> >    # check for correct setup and source the $FSTYP specific functions now
>> >    _source_specific_fs $FSTYP
>> > 
>> >  From the code logic of check script:
>> > 
>> >          if $RECREATE_TEST_DEV || [ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]; then
>> >                  echo "RECREATING    -- $FSTYP on $TEST_DEV"
>> >                  _test_unmount 2> /dev/null
>> >                  if ! _test_mkfs >$tmp.err 2>&1
>> >                  then
>> >                          echo "our local _test_mkfs routine ..."
>> >                          cat $tmp.err
>> >                          echo "check: failed to mkfs \$TEST_DEV using specified options"
>> >                          status=1
>> >                          exit
>> >                  fi
>> >                  if ! _test_mount
>> >                  then
>> >                          echo "check: failed to mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
>> >                          status=1
>> >                          exit
>> >                  fi
>> >                  # TEST_DEV has been recreated, previous FSTYP derived from
>> >                  # TEST_DEV could be changed, source common/rc again with
>> >                  # correct FSTYP to get FSTYP specific configs, e.g. common/xfs
>> >                  . common/rc
>> >                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > we import common/rc at here.
>> > 
>> > So I'm wondering if we can move this line upward, to fix the problem you
>> > hit (and don't bring in regression :) Does that help?
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > Zorro
>> 
>> Okay so we can move ". common/rc" upward and then remove the following from
>> "check" file:
>> 
>>         if ! _test_mount
>>         then
>>             echo "check: failed to mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
>>             status=1
>>             exit
>>         fi
>> 
>> since . common/rc will call init_rc() in the end, which does a
>> _test_mount(). Do you agree with this (Zorro and Ritesh)?
>> 
>> I can make the changes and send a v2?
>
> Hmm... the _init_rc doesn't do _test_mkfs,

Yes, I had noticed that problem. So I felt sourcing fs specific file
before _test_mkfs should be ok.

> so you might need to do ". common/rc" after "_test_mkfs", rather than "_test_unmount".
>
> By checking the _init_rc, I think it can replace the _test_mount you metioned
> above. Some details might need more testing, to make sure we didn't miss
> anything wrong:)

If moving . common/rc above _test_mount works, than that is a better
approach than sourcing fs specific config file twice.


-ritesh

>
> Any review points from others?
>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>
>> 
>> --NR
>> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > >   		if ! _test_mkfs >$tmp.err 2>&1
>> > >   		then
>> > >   			echo "our local _test_mkfs routine ..."
>> > > -- 
>> > > 2.34.1
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> -- 
>> Nirjhar Roy
>> Linux Kernel Developer
>> IBM, Bangalore
>>