From: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
To: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] common/rc: Use -v option with findmnt
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:44:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170315084433.GK14226@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34649364-41c7-7d05-45a3-616c45cc59cf@suse.de>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 09:07:05AM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>
>
> On 03/14/2017 12:07 AM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 01:07:26PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> >> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
> >>
> >> Since btrfs puts in the subvol name in the device, we should
> >> use -v option to not print the bind mounts or btrfs volumes.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 5e6892d ("common/rc: use findmnt to check mounted device")
> >> Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
> >
> > Hmm, I mounted a btrfs snapshot of TEST_DEV to another dir and ran
> > check, check reported:
> >
> > TEST_DEV=/dev/sdc1 is mounted but not on TEST_DIR=/mnt - aborting
> > Already mounted result:
> > /dev/sdc1[/snap] /mnt/scratch
> >
> > which seems fine and clear to me. Did you hit any particular failures
> > without this fix?
>
>
> The problem is you hit this error even if /dev/sdc1 is mounted on
> TEST_DIR=/mnt because of the subvolume name appended to the device name.
>
> IOW, the test fails when it should not have. Here is an output of
> executing btrfs/021:
>
> --- tests/btrfs/021.out 2017-01-26 02:23:04.444778259 -0600
> +++ /fiona/xfstests/results//btrfs/021.out.bad 2017-03-14
> 04:25:38.807212599 -0500
> @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
> QA output created by 021
> -Silence is golden
> +SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/vdc is mounted but not on SCRATCH_MNT=/scratch -
> aborting
> +Already mounted result:
> +/dev/vdc[/newvol] /scratch
Ah, I see the problem. It's because btrfs/009 sets default volume to the
newly created "newvol", then _scratch_mount mounts the newvol by
default. And _check_mounted_on finds the inconsistency because of the
subvolume name.
>
> However, this fix is incorrect.
I think this patch is a clearer fix, it doesn't require test to do
_scratch_umount at the end of test, and works for future tests that do
the same setup.
Thanks,
Eryu
>
> I found that this was because of reminiscences of btrfs/009
> Adding _scratch_umount to the end of btrfs/009 solves the issue, since
> the filesystem is created fresh in the next test.
>
> The filesystem was not created fresh in the next test because findmnt
> would fail in _require_scratch.
>
> I will shortly post a new patch which would fix this.
>
>
>
> --
> Goldwyn
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-15 8:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-13 18:07 [PATCH] common/rc: Use -v option with findmnt Goldwyn Rodrigues
2017-03-14 5:07 ` Eryu Guan
2017-03-14 14:07 ` Goldwyn Rodrigues
2017-03-15 8:44 ` Eryu Guan [this message]
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=20170315084433.GK14226@eguan.usersys.redhat.com \
--to=eguan@redhat.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rgoldwyn@suse.com \
--cc=rgoldwyn@suse.de \
/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