From: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
To: sandeen@redhat.com
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: avoid ext4/306 failures caused by incompatible mount options
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:47:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140131154750.GA2385@wallace> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52E9761F.7070903@redhat.com>
* Eric Sandeen <esandeen@redhat.com>:
> On 1/29/14, 3:38 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:45:02PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote:
> >> ext4/306 will fail when mounting the ext3 file system it creates if an
> >> ext3-incompatible mount option is applied by _scratch_mount. This can
> >> happen if EXT_MOUNT_OPTIONS is defined appropriately in the test
> >> environment. For example, the block_validity option is commonly used
> >> to enhance ext4 testing, and it is not supported by ext3. Fix this by
> >> not including any mount options defined by the test environment.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand why the test is insisting that the file
> > system be mounted using ext3. If the file system is created without
> > the extents flag, all of the files will be created using indirect
> > blocks, and fundamentally what this test is getting at is that after
> > we grow the file system using resize2fs, the new blocks are available
> > to be allocated and attached to an indirect block file.
> >
> > We can do this by using ext4; I'm not sure why this test is trying to
> > use ext3 to set up the test flie system. It might be better to get
> > rid of the requirement to create the file system using ext3, since it
> > will make the test runnable even if the ext3 file system hasn't been
> > configured into the system and CONFIG_EXT23_AS_EXT4 is not enabled.
> >
> > IIRC, Eric Sandeen wrote this test --- Eric, am I missing some reason
> > why it was necessary to use ext3 here?
>
> Nope. Tomayto, tomahto - I think the original report had trouble with
> an ext3 filesystem, so that's how I wrote the testcase.
>
> It could be fixed either way, I think.
>
If using ext3 doesn't add any additional value to the test, using ext4
instead certainly simplifies it. I'll post a V2 shortly.
Thanks,
Eric
> -Eric
>
> >
> > - Ted
> >
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-31 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-29 20:45 [PATCH] xfstests: avoid ext4/306 failures caused by incompatible mount options Eric Whitney
2014-01-29 21:38 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-01-29 21:43 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-01-29 21:48 ` Kodiak Furr
2014-01-31 15:47 ` Eric Whitney [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=20140131154750.GA2385@wallace \
--to=enwlinux@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).