From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] common/rc: teach _scratch_mkfs to handle mkfs option conflicts
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 07:00:13 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161124200013.GT31101@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161124160643.2438-1-eguan@redhat.com>
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:06:43AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> Currently in _scratch_mkfs only xfs and ext4 could handle the mkfs
> failure caused by conflicts between $MKFS_OPTIONS and mkfs options
> specified by tests, because of _scratch_mkfs_xfs and
> _scratch_mkfs_ext4. This is a very useful functionality that allows
> tests to specify mkfs options safely and to test specific fs
> configurations, without worrying about mkfs failures caused by these
> options.
>
> Now teach _scratch_mkfs to handle such mkfs option conflicts for
> other filesystems too, i.e. mkfs again only with mkfs options
> specified by tests. Also add the ability to filter unnecessary
> messages from mkfs stderr.
Nice!
.....
> + local extra_mkfs_options=$*
> + local mkfs_cmd=""
> + local mkfs_filter=""
> + local mkfs_status
> +
> + case $FSTYP in
> + xfs)
> + _scratch_mkfs_xfs $extra_mkfs_options
> + ;;
> + nfs*)
> + # unable to re-create NFS, just remove all files in
> + # $SCRATCH_MNT to avoid EEXIST caused by the leftover files
> + # created in previous runs
> + _scratch_cleanup_files
> + ;;
> + cifs)
> + # unable to re-create CIFS, just remove all files in
> + # $SCRATCH_MNT to avoid EEXIST caused by the leftover files
> + # created in previous runs
> + _scratch_cleanup_files
> + ;;
> + ceph)
> + # Don't re-create CephFS, just remove all files
> + _scratch_cleanup_files
> + ;;
> + overlay)
> + # unable to re-create overlay, remove all files in $SCRATCH_MNT
> + # to avoid EEXIST caused by the leftover files created in
> + # previous runs
> + _scratch_cleanup_files
> + ;;
> + tmpfs)
> + # do nothing for tmpfs
> + ;;
> + ext4)
> + _scratch_mkfs_ext4 $extra_mkfs_options
> + ;;
> + udf)
> + mkfs_cmd="$MKFS_UDF_PROG"
> + mkfs_filter="cat"
> + ;;
> + btrfs)
> + mkfs_cmd="$MKFS_BTRFS_PROG"
> + mkfs_filter="cat"
> + ;;
> + ext2|ext3)
> + mkfs_cmd="$MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP -- -F"
> + mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^Warning: -e \"^mke2fs \""
> + ;;
> + f2fs)
> + mkfs_cmd="$MKFS_F2FS_PROG"
> + mkfs_filter="cat"
> + ;;
> + ocfs2)
> + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --"
> + mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^mkfs\.ocfs2"
> + ;;
> + *)
> + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --"
> + mkfs_filter="cat"
> + ;;
> + esac
> + mkfs_status=$?
I suspect that $? can be undefined at this point - it's value is set
by whatever the last command was run, and not all the cases above
run a command. This might be better handled by something like:
case $FSTYP in
nfs*|cifs|ceph|overlay)
# unable to re-create this fstyp, just remove all files in
# $SCRATCH_MNT to avoid EEXIST caused by the leftover files
# created in previous runs
_scratch_cleanup_files
return 0
;;
tmpfs)
# do nothing
return 0
;;
ext4)
_scratch_mkfs_ext4 $extra_mkfs_options
return $?
;;
xfs)
_scratch_mkfs_xfs $extra_mkfs_options
return $?
;;
udf)
mkfs_cmd="$MKFS_UDF_PROG"
mkfs_filter="cat"
;;
.....
> +
> + # return immediately if FSTYP is handled by dedicated helpers
> + if [ -z "$mkfs_cmd" ]; then
> + return $mkfs_status
> + fi
And then this can go as well.
> +
> + # save mkfs output in case conflict means we need to run again.
> + # only the output for the mkfs that applies should be shown
> + eval "$mkfs_cmd $MKFS_OPTIONS $extra_mkfs_options $SCRATCH_DEV" \
> + 2>$tmp.mkfserr 1>$tmp.mkfsstd
> + mkfs_status=$?
> +
> + # a mkfs failure may be caused by conflicts between $MKFS_OPTIONS and
> + # $extra_mkfs_options
> + if [ $mkfs_status -ne 0 -a -n "$extra_mkfs_options" ]; then
> + (
> + echo -n "** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options "
> + echo "added to \"$MKFS_OPTIONS\" by test $seq **"
> + echo -n "** attempting to mkfs using only test $seq "
> + echo "options: $extra_mkfs_options **"
> + ) >> $seqres.full
> +
> + # running mkfs again. overwrite previous mkfs output files
> + eval "$mkfs_cmd $extra_mkfs_options $SCRATCH_DEV" \
> + 2>$tmp.mkfserr 1>$tmp.mkfsstd
> + mkfs_status=$?
> + fi
> +
> + # output stored mkfs output, filtering unnecessary output from stderr
> + cat $tmp.mkfsstd
> + cat $tmp.mkfserr | $mkfs_filter >&2
Perhaps you could make this a function? Because then it can probably
be used in _scratch_mkfs_ext4 and _scratch_mkfs_xfs as well?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-24 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-24 16:06 [PATCH] common/rc: teach _scratch_mkfs to handle mkfs option conflicts Eryu Guan
2016-11-24 20:00 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2016-11-25 11:28 ` Eryu Guan
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=20161124200013.GT31101@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=eguan@redhat.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox