From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:45840 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725759AbeICEGk (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Sep 2018 00:06:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 09:49:06 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fstests: add support for hfsplus Message-ID: <20180902234906.GC27618@dastard> References: <20180901020503.5i4hz4inqtfd3frg@eaf> <20180901170957.GF3651@desktop> <20180902040337.3bdp224btok5y5xh@eaf> <4445a65e-42b7-5e2e-36fa-45f116f99f33@sandeen.net> <20180902140529.GI3651@desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180902140529.GI3651@desktop> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Eryu Guan Cc: Eric Sandeen , Ernesto =?iso-8859-1?Q?A=2E_Fern=E1ndez?= , fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 10:05:29PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:13:26AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > > On 9/1/18 11:03 PM, Ernesto A. Fern=E1ndez wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 01:09:57AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:05:03PM -0300, Ernesto A. Fern=E1ndez w= rote: > > >>> It is not possible to set file system size when running mkfs.hfsp= lus, > > >>> so use the device mapper as a workaround. > > >> > > >> I'd prefer _notrun the test in _scratch_mkfs_sized() instead of th= is > > >> workaround, as the harness is expecting to operate $SCRATCH_DEV bu= t this > > >> workaround may break this assumption in subtle ways, e.g. now > > >> _check_scratch_fs fails to create hfsplus-tmp device because > > >> $SCRATCH_DEV may still be mounted. > > >=20 > > > I didn't realize $SCRATCH_DEV could still be mounted, sorry. Maybe = I can > > > unmount it before _dmsetup_create(), and remount after _dmsetup_rem= ove()? > > > Like _check_generic_filesystem() does. Or would that bring other pr= oblems? >=20 > I haven't seen other problems yet (after just a few simple test runs), > but I suspect it may break tests in more subtle ways, the > _check_scratch_fs failure is just an example. And even it works for now= , > and we have to worry about making it continue to work when adding new > features in the future and that's a maintaining burden we'd better to > avoid. Ah, I just replied on the -fsdevel thread saying exactly this.... > > > I know it's ugly, but one test that uses _scratch_mkfs_sized() has = helped > > > me find a number of bugs already. It would be really useful to get = it to > > > work. > >=20 > > Has anyone proposed a patch to mkfs.hfsplus to accept a filesystem si= ze? > > I'd expect that might be less complicated than this sort of devicemap= per > > setup ;) > > Yeah, this would be the best way to let _scratch_mkfs_sized() support > hfsplus :) .... and this, too. :) It'll be easy to add a mkfs option check in _scratch_mkfs_sized() for hfsplus. That should make it work (or not run, as the case may be) reliably into the future, too. Cheers, Dave. --=20 Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com