* [PATCH v2] fstests: add support for hfsplus @ 2018-09-24 21:43 Ernesto A. Fernández 2018-09-25 5:57 ` Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Ernesto A. Fernández @ 2018-09-24 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: fstests; +Cc: Eryu Guan, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner Running tests on hfsplus requires patched versions of the mkfs and fsck tools [1] that support filesystems smaller than the device. [1] https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git Signed-off-by: Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> --- common/config | 10 ++++++++++ common/rc | 15 ++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/common/config b/common/config index 1ba8d96c..315f8b1e 100644 --- a/common/config +++ b/common/config @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ case "$HOSTOS" in export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false" export MKFS_OVERLAY_PROG="false" export MKFS_REISER4_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.reiser4) + export MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.hfsplus) export E2FSCK_PROG=$(type -P e2fsck) export TUNE2FS_PROG=$(type -P tune2fs) export FSCK_OVERLAY_PROG=$(type -P fsck.overlay) @@ -313,6 +314,9 @@ _mount_opts() ubifs) export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$UBIFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS ;; + hfsplus) + export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MOUNT_OPTIONS + ;; *) ;; esac @@ -380,6 +384,9 @@ _mkfs_opts() f2fs) export MKFS_OPTIONS="$F2FS_MKFS_OPTIONS" ;; + hfsplus) + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MKFS_OPTIONS + ;; *) ;; esac @@ -397,6 +404,9 @@ _fsck_opts() f2fs) export FSCK_OPTIONS="" ;; + hfsplus) + export FSCK_OPTIONS="-nX" + ;; *) export FSCK_OPTIONS="-n" ;; diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc index d5bb1fee..a843e9f6 100644 --- a/common/rc +++ b/common/rc @@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ case "$FSTYP" in ubifs) [ "$UBIUPDATEVOL_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "ubiupdatevol not found" ;; + hfsplus) + [ "$MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.hfsplus not found" + mkfs.hfsplus -X |& grep "invalid" && + _fatal "A patched version of mkfs.hfsplus is required:" \ + "https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git" + ;; esac if [ ! -z "$REPORT_LIST" ]; then @@ -746,6 +752,10 @@ _scratch_mkfs() mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --" mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^mkfs\.ocfs2" ;; + hfsplus) + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP -- -X" + mkfs_filter="cat" + ;; *) mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --" mkfs_filter="cat" @@ -995,6 +1005,9 @@ _scratch_mkfs_sized() fi export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o size=$fssize $TMPFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS" ;; + hfsplus) + ${MKFS_PROG}.$FSTYP $MKFS_OPTIONS -X $fssize -b $blocksize $SCRATCH_DEV + ;; *) _notrun "Filesystem $FSTYP not supported in _scratch_mkfs_sized" ;; @@ -3055,7 +3068,7 @@ _require_metadata_journaling() fi case "$FSTYP" in - ext2|vfat|msdos|udf) + ext2|vfat|msdos|udf|hfsplus) _notrun "$FSTYP does not support metadata journaling" ;; ext4) -- 2.11.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: add support for hfsplus 2018-09-24 21:43 [PATCH v2] fstests: add support for hfsplus Ernesto A. Fernández @ 2018-09-25 5:57 ` Amir Goldstein 2018-09-25 17:58 ` Ernesto A. Fernández 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2018-09-25 5:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ernesto.mnd.fernandez; +Cc: fstests, Eryu Guan, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:44 AM Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> wrote: > > Running tests on hfsplus requires patched versions of the mkfs and fsck > tools [1] that support filesystems smaller than the device. That's not accurate, is it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the patched tools are required to run the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests? > > [1] https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git > > Signed-off-by: Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> > --- > common/config | 10 ++++++++++ > common/rc | 15 ++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/common/config b/common/config > index 1ba8d96c..315f8b1e 100644 > --- a/common/config > +++ b/common/config > @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ case "$HOSTOS" in > export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false" > export MKFS_OVERLAY_PROG="false" > export MKFS_REISER4_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.reiser4) > + export MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.hfsplus) > export E2FSCK_PROG=$(type -P e2fsck) > export TUNE2FS_PROG=$(type -P tune2fs) > export FSCK_OVERLAY_PROG=$(type -P fsck.overlay) > @@ -313,6 +314,9 @@ _mount_opts() > ubifs) > export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$UBIFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > ;; > + hfsplus) > + export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > + ;; > *) > ;; > esac > @@ -380,6 +384,9 @@ _mkfs_opts() > f2fs) > export MKFS_OPTIONS="$F2FS_MKFS_OPTIONS" > ;; > + hfsplus) > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MKFS_OPTIONS > + ;; > *) > ;; > esac > @@ -397,6 +404,9 @@ _fsck_opts() > f2fs) > export FSCK_OPTIONS="" > ;; > + hfsplus) > + export FSCK_OPTIONS="-nX" > + ;; > *) > export FSCK_OPTIONS="-n" > ;; > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > index d5bb1fee..a843e9f6 100644 > --- a/common/rc > +++ b/common/rc > @@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ case "$FSTYP" in > ubifs) > [ "$UBIUPDATEVOL_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "ubiupdatevol not found" > ;; > + hfsplus) > + [ "$MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.hfsplus not found" > + mkfs.hfsplus -X |& grep "invalid" && > + _fatal "A patched version of mkfs.hfsplus is required:" \ > + "https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git" Why fatal and not just notrun the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests if no -X support? Must all tests run with mkfs -X and fsck -X?? > + ;; > esac > > if [ ! -z "$REPORT_LIST" ]; then > @@ -746,6 +752,10 @@ _scratch_mkfs() > mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --" > mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^mkfs\.ocfs2" > ;; > + hfsplus) > + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP -- -X" -X here seems like a typo? Thanks, Amir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: add support for hfsplus 2018-09-25 5:57 ` Amir Goldstein @ 2018-09-25 17:58 ` Ernesto A. Fernández 2018-09-25 18:12 ` Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Ernesto A. Fernández @ 2018-09-25 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: fstests, Eryu Guan, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 08:57:58AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:44 AM Ernesto A. Fernández > <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Running tests on hfsplus requires patched versions of the mkfs and fsck > > tools [1] that support filesystems smaller than the device. > > That's not accurate, is it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the patched > tools are required to run the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests? I set this up to call _fatal early if the tools are not the patched versions. Using -X on mkfs.hfsplus forces the size to be a whole number of blocks, and using -X on fsck makes it work under that assumption. This is briefly explained in the patched man page for the tools. It's a workaround needed because hfsplus only stores the number of allocation blocks in the volume header. If the device size is not a multiple of the block size, the backup header will be past the end, and fsck will take that as corruption. Of course I could let the patched fsck use the -X flag by default. But that could be dangerous if somebody accidentally uses it to check an important filesystem. > > > > > [1] https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git > > > > Signed-off-by: Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> > > --- > > common/config | 10 ++++++++++ > > common/rc | 15 ++++++++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/common/config b/common/config > > index 1ba8d96c..315f8b1e 100644 > > --- a/common/config > > +++ b/common/config > > @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ case "$HOSTOS" in > > export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false" > > export MKFS_OVERLAY_PROG="false" > > export MKFS_REISER4_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.reiser4) > > + export MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.hfsplus) > > export E2FSCK_PROG=$(type -P e2fsck) > > export TUNE2FS_PROG=$(type -P tune2fs) > > export FSCK_OVERLAY_PROG=$(type -P fsck.overlay) > > @@ -313,6 +314,9 @@ _mount_opts() > > ubifs) > > export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$UBIFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > ;; > > + hfsplus) > > + export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > + ;; > > *) > > ;; > > esac > > @@ -380,6 +384,9 @@ _mkfs_opts() > > f2fs) > > export MKFS_OPTIONS="$F2FS_MKFS_OPTIONS" > > ;; > > + hfsplus) > > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MKFS_OPTIONS > > + ;; > > *) > > ;; > > esac > > @@ -397,6 +404,9 @@ _fsck_opts() > > f2fs) > > export FSCK_OPTIONS="" > > ;; > > + hfsplus) > > + export FSCK_OPTIONS="-nX" > > + ;; > > *) > > export FSCK_OPTIONS="-n" > > ;; > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > index d5bb1fee..a843e9f6 100644 > > --- a/common/rc > > +++ b/common/rc > > @@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ case "$FSTYP" in > > ubifs) > > [ "$UBIUPDATEVOL_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "ubiupdatevol not found" > > ;; > > + hfsplus) > > + [ "$MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.hfsplus not found" > > + mkfs.hfsplus -X |& grep "invalid" && > > + _fatal "A patched version of mkfs.hfsplus is required:" \ > > + "https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git" > > Why fatal and not just notrun the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests if no -X support? > Must all tests run with mkfs -X and fsck -X?? I always use -X on mkfs so the tests will complain if the size of the device is not a whole number of blocks. Otherwise the tests would later fail on fsck. Maybe I should check for -X support when setting the FSCK_OPTIONS, and in _scratch_mkfs()? Then _fatal would not be necessary. > > > + ;; > > esac > > > > if [ ! -z "$REPORT_LIST" ]; then > > @@ -746,6 +752,10 @@ _scratch_mkfs() > > mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --" > > mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^mkfs\.ocfs2" > > ;; > > + hfsplus) > > + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP -- -X" > > -X here seems like a typo? This is so the tests will complain if the device size is not a multiple of the block size. I think I explained it in the patched man page for mkfs.hfsplus, but it may be better to put a comment here. Thanks, Ernest > > Thanks, > Amir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: add support for hfsplus 2018-09-25 17:58 ` Ernesto A. Fernández @ 2018-09-25 18:12 ` Amir Goldstein 2018-09-25 18:35 ` Ernesto A. Fernández 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2018-09-25 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ernesto.mnd.fernandez; +Cc: fstests, Eryu Guan, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:58 PM Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 08:57:58AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:44 AM Ernesto A. Fernández > > <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Running tests on hfsplus requires patched versions of the mkfs and fsck > > > tools [1] that support filesystems smaller than the device. > > > > That's not accurate, is it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the patched > > tools are required to run the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests? > > I set this up to call _fatal early if the tools are not the patched > versions. > > Using -X on mkfs.hfsplus forces the size to be a whole number of blocks, > and using -X on fsck makes it work under that assumption. This is briefly > explained in the patched man page for the tools. > > It's a workaround needed because hfsplus only stores the number of > allocation blocks in the volume header. If the device size is not a > multiple of the block size, the backup header will be past the end, and > fsck will take that as corruption. > > Of course I could let the patched fsck use the -X flag by default. But > that could be dangerous if somebody accidentally uses it to check an > important filesystem. > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > common/config | 10 ++++++++++ > > > common/rc | 15 ++++++++++++++- > > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/common/config b/common/config > > > index 1ba8d96c..315f8b1e 100644 > > > --- a/common/config > > > +++ b/common/config > > > @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ case "$HOSTOS" in > > > export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false" > > > export MKFS_OVERLAY_PROG="false" > > > export MKFS_REISER4_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.reiser4) > > > + export MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.hfsplus) > > > export E2FSCK_PROG=$(type -P e2fsck) > > > export TUNE2FS_PROG=$(type -P tune2fs) > > > export FSCK_OVERLAY_PROG=$(type -P fsck.overlay) > > > @@ -313,6 +314,9 @@ _mount_opts() > > > ubifs) > > > export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$UBIFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > > ;; > > > + hfsplus) > > > + export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > > + ;; > > > *) > > > ;; > > > esac > > > @@ -380,6 +384,9 @@ _mkfs_opts() > > > f2fs) > > > export MKFS_OPTIONS="$F2FS_MKFS_OPTIONS" > > > ;; > > > + hfsplus) > > > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MKFS_OPTIONS > > > + ;; > > > *) > > > ;; > > > esac > > > @@ -397,6 +404,9 @@ _fsck_opts() > > > f2fs) > > > export FSCK_OPTIONS="" > > > ;; > > > + hfsplus) > > > + export FSCK_OPTIONS="-nX" > > > + ;; > > > *) > > > export FSCK_OPTIONS="-n" > > > ;; > > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > > index d5bb1fee..a843e9f6 100644 > > > --- a/common/rc > > > +++ b/common/rc > > > @@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ case "$FSTYP" in > > > ubifs) > > > [ "$UBIUPDATEVOL_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "ubiupdatevol not found" > > > ;; > > > + hfsplus) > > > + [ "$MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.hfsplus not found" > > > + mkfs.hfsplus -X |& grep "invalid" && > > > + _fatal "A patched version of mkfs.hfsplus is required:" \ > > > + "https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git" > > > > Why fatal and not just notrun the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests if no -X support? > > Must all tests run with mkfs -X and fsck -X?? > > I always use -X on mkfs so the tests will complain if the size of the > device is not a whole number of blocks. Otherwise the tests would later > fail on fsck. > > Maybe I should check for -X support when setting the FSCK_OPTIONS, and in > _scratch_mkfs()? Then _fatal would not be necessary. I don't mind myself. If nobody has objections to support hfsplus only with patched tools that is a valid option. > > > > > > + ;; > > > esac > > > > > > if [ ! -z "$REPORT_LIST" ]; then > > > @@ -746,6 +752,10 @@ _scratch_mkfs() > > > mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --" > > > mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^mkfs\.ocfs2" > > > ;; > > > + hfsplus) > > > + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP -- -X" > > > > -X here seems like a typo? > > This is so the tests will complain if the device size is not a multiple > of the block size. I think I explained it in the patched man page for > mkfs.hfsplus, but it may be better to put a comment here. > Comment is a good idea, but -X after -- ? shouldn't all options come before --? Thanks, Amir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: add support for hfsplus 2018-09-25 18:12 ` Amir Goldstein @ 2018-09-25 18:35 ` Ernesto A. Fernández 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Ernesto A. Fernández @ 2018-09-25 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: fstests, Eryu Guan, Eric Sandeen, Dave Chinner On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 09:12:03PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:58 PM Ernesto A. Fernández > <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 08:57:58AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:44 AM Ernesto A. Fernández > > > <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Running tests on hfsplus requires patched versions of the mkfs and fsck > > > > tools [1] that support filesystems smaller than the device. > > > > > > That's not accurate, is it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the patched > > > tools are required to run the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests? > > > > I set this up to call _fatal early if the tools are not the patched > > versions. > > > > Using -X on mkfs.hfsplus forces the size to be a whole number of blocks, > > and using -X on fsck makes it work under that assumption. This is briefly > > explained in the patched man page for the tools. > > > > It's a workaround needed because hfsplus only stores the number of > > allocation blocks in the volume header. If the device size is not a > > multiple of the block size, the backup header will be past the end, and > > fsck will take that as corruption. > > > > Of course I could let the patched fsck use the -X flag by default. But > > that could be dangerous if somebody accidentally uses it to check an > > important filesystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > common/config | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > common/rc | 15 ++++++++++++++- > > > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/common/config b/common/config > > > > index 1ba8d96c..315f8b1e 100644 > > > > --- a/common/config > > > > +++ b/common/config > > > > @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ case "$HOSTOS" in > > > > export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false" > > > > export MKFS_OVERLAY_PROG="false" > > > > export MKFS_REISER4_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.reiser4) > > > > + export MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.hfsplus) > > > > export E2FSCK_PROG=$(type -P e2fsck) > > > > export TUNE2FS_PROG=$(type -P tune2fs) > > > > export FSCK_OVERLAY_PROG=$(type -P fsck.overlay) > > > > @@ -313,6 +314,9 @@ _mount_opts() > > > > ubifs) > > > > export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$UBIFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > > > + ;; > > > > *) > > > > ;; > > > > esac > > > > @@ -380,6 +384,9 @@ _mkfs_opts() > > > > f2fs) > > > > export MKFS_OPTIONS="$F2FS_MKFS_OPTIONS" > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MKFS_OPTIONS > > > > + ;; > > > > *) > > > > ;; > > > > esac > > > > @@ -397,6 +404,9 @@ _fsck_opts() > > > > f2fs) > > > > export FSCK_OPTIONS="" > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + export FSCK_OPTIONS="-nX" > > > > + ;; > > > > *) > > > > export FSCK_OPTIONS="-n" > > > > ;; > > > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > > > index d5bb1fee..a843e9f6 100644 > > > > --- a/common/rc > > > > +++ b/common/rc > > > > @@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ case "$FSTYP" in > > > > ubifs) > > > > [ "$UBIUPDATEVOL_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "ubiupdatevol not found" > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + [ "$MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.hfsplus not found" > > > > + mkfs.hfsplus -X |& grep "invalid" && > > > > + _fatal "A patched version of mkfs.hfsplus is required:" \ > > > > + "https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git" > > > > > > Why fatal and not just notrun the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests if no -X support? > > > Must all tests run with mkfs -X and fsck -X?? > > > > I always use -X on mkfs so the tests will complain if the size of the > > device is not a whole number of blocks. Otherwise the tests would later > > fail on fsck. > > > > Maybe I should check for -X support when setting the FSCK_OPTIONS, and in > > _scratch_mkfs()? Then _fatal would not be necessary. > > I don't mind myself. If nobody has objections to support hfsplus only with > patched tools that is a valid option. > > > > > > > > > > + ;; > > > > esac > > > > > > > > if [ ! -z "$REPORT_LIST" ]; then > > > > @@ -746,6 +752,10 @@ _scratch_mkfs() > > > > mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --" > > > > mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^mkfs\.ocfs2" > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP -- -X" > > > > > > -X here seems like a typo? > > > > This is so the tests will complain if the device size is not a multiple > > of the block size. I think I explained it in the patched man page for > > mkfs.hfsplus, but it may be better to put a comment here. > > > > Comment is a good idea, but -X after -- ? shouldn't all options > come before --? I think the generic mkfs program passes everything after -- to mkfs.fstype. I was following what ext2 does above. > > Thanks, > Amir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-09-26 0:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-09-24 21:43 [PATCH v2] fstests: add support for hfsplus Ernesto A. Fernández 2018-09-25 5:57 ` Amir Goldstein 2018-09-25 17:58 ` Ernesto A. Fernández 2018-09-25 18:12 ` Amir Goldstein 2018-09-25 18:35 ` Ernesto A. Fernández
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox