From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sandeen.net ([63.231.237.45]:55894 "EHLO sandeen.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751564AbcFVDFo (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:05:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] xfs/006: new case to test xfs fail_at_unmount error handling References: <1466429073-10124-1-git-send-email-zlang@redhat.com> <1466429073-10124-2-git-send-email-zlang@redhat.com> <20160621070818.GT5140@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> <20160622000040.GF27480@dastard> <241381551.489652.1466559773511.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: <696ce99d-dfa9-70a0-29c2-e605a3d71285@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:04:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <241381551.489652.1466559773511.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Zirong Lang , Dave Chinner Cc: Eryu Guan , fstests@vger.kernel.org, sandeen@redhat.com, cem@redhat.com List-ID: On 6/21/16 8:42 PM, Zirong Lang wrote: > Hi Dave >=20 > ----- =E5=8E=9F=E5=A7=8B=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6 ----- >> =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: "Dave Chinner" >> =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: "Eryu Guan" >> =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: "Zorro Lang" , fstests@vger.kern= el.org, sandeen@redhat.com, cem@redhat.com >> =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89, 201= 6=E5=B9=B4 6 =E6=9C=88 22=E6=97=A5 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=88 8:00:40 >> =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] xfs/006: new case to test xfs f= ail_at_unmount error handling >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:08:18PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:24:33PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: >>>> +# real QA test starts here >>>> +_supported_fs xfs >>>> +_supported_os Linux >>>> +_require_dm_target error >>>> +_require_scratch >>>> + >>>> +_scratch_mkfs > $seqres.full 2>&1 >>>> +_require_fs_sysfs $SCRATCH_DEV error/fail_at_unmount >>> >>> Usually we call _require_xxx before mkfs and do the real test, a comm= ent >>> to explain why we need to mkfs first would be good. >> >> Ok, so why do we need to test the scratch device for this >> sysfs file check? We've already got the test device mounted, and >> filesystems tend to present identical sysfs control files for all >> mounted filesystems. >> >> i.e. this _require_fs_sysfs() function could just drop the device >> and check the test device for whether the sysfs entry exists. If it >> doesn't, then the scratch device isn't going to have it, either. >=20 > Hmm... at first I thought about if I should use TEST_DEV to do _require= _fs_sysfs > checking. But I'm not sure if different devices maybe bring different s= ysfs > attributes in, if someone make a special device in one case? So I give = one more > argument about device name. Sorry, I was kind of thinking this as well on my first review, but I let = it pass. I would say that for now, let's just use TEST_DEV. There is no reason to= code around "what-if" scenarios. If a filesystem ends up needing a special mk= fs or mount option to expose a sysfs tunable in the future, we can add a dev= ice name at that point. Until then, I don't think there is any reason, and the "mk= fs first, then require" is definitely a little bit out of the ordinary. -Eric