[PATCH] ext4: use mkfs.ext4 -F instead of piping in yes

[PATCH] ext4: use mkfs.ext4 -F instead of piping in yes

[Theodore Ts'o]

Using "yes | mkfs.ext4 ..." results in the error message results in
the test failing, at least for some versions of e2fsprogs:

    +yes: standard output: Broken pipe
    +yes: write error

It better to use the -F option, which will eliminate the questions.

Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Xiaoguang Wang <wangxg.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
---
 tests/ext4/003 | 2 +-
 tests/ext4/306 | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/ext4/003 b/tests/ext4/003
index 572e685..a2e9d75 100755
--- a/tests/ext4/003
+++ b/tests/ext4/003
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ _require_ext4_bigalloc
 
 rm -f $seqres.full
 
-yes | mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
+mkfs.ext4 -F -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
 	>> $seqres.full 2>&1
 _scratch_mount || _fail "couldn't mount fs"
 
diff --git a/tests/ext4/306 b/tests/ext4/306
index fd50b0e..fd5c3a2 100755
--- a/tests/ext4/306
+++ b/tests/ext4/306
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ _require_scratch
 rm -f $seqres.full
 
 # Make a small ext4 fs with extents disabled & mount it
-yes | mkfs.ext4 -O ^extents,^64bit $SCRATCH_DEV 512m >> $seqres.full 2>&1
+mkfs.ext4 -F -O ^extents,^64bit $SCRATCH_DEV 512m >> $seqres.full 2>&1
 _scratch_mount || _fail "couldn't mount fs"
 
 # Create a small non-extent-based file
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH] ext4: use mkfs.ext4 -F instead of piping in yes

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 08:29:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Using "yes | mkfs.ext4 ..." results in the error message results in
> the test failing, at least for some versions of e2fsprogs:
> 
>     +yes: standard output: Broken pipe
>     +yes: write error
> 
> It better to use the -F option, which will eliminate the questions.

Looks good, but maybe we should have a $MKFS_EXT4_PROG variable similar
to $MKFS_XFS_PROG so that we can set this in one place?

Re: [PATCH] ext4: use mkfs.ext4 -F instead of piping in yes

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 08:49:27AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 08:29:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Using "yes | mkfs.ext4 ..." results in the error message results in
> > the test failing, at least for some versions of e2fsprogs:
> > 
> >     +yes: standard output: Broken pipe
> >     +yes: write error
> > 
> > It better to use the -F option, which will eliminate the questions.
> 
> Looks good, but maybe we should have a $MKFS_EXT4_PROG variable similar
> to $MKFS_XFS_PROG so that we can set this in one place?

Agreed, I'll send a separate patch to fix that.   One amusing thing:

% git grep mkfs.ext4
common/rc:_scratch_mkfs_ext4()
common/rc:      _scratch_mkfs_ext4 $*
common/rc:# this test requires the bigalloc feature to be available in mkfs.ext4
common/rc:      _scratch_mkfs_ext4 -O bigalloc >/dev/null 2>&1 \
common/rc:         || _notrun "mkfs.ext4 doesn't have bigalloc feature"
common/rc:      _scratch_mkfs_ext4 -O bigalloc >/dev/null 2>&1
tests/btrfs/012:MKFS_EXT4_PROG="`set_prog_path mkfs.ext4`"
tests/btrfs/012:_require_command $MKFS_EXT4_PROG mkfs.ext4
tests/ext4/003:mkfs.ext4 -F -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
tests/ext4/306:mkfs.ext4 -F -O ^extents,^64bit $SCRATCH_DEV 512m >> $seqres.full 2>&1

(note the btrfs test is the one place using and defining MKFS_EXT4_PROG :-)

      	  	     	    	      	       - Ted

[PATCH 1/2] ext4: define MKFS_EXT4_PROG and use it instead of "mkfs.ext4" / "mkfs -t ext4"

[Theodore Ts'o]

Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
---
 common/config   | 1 +
 common/rc       | 7 +++++--
 tests/btrfs/012 | 1 -
 tests/ext4/003  | 2 +-
 tests/ext4/306  | 2 +-
 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/common/config b/common/config
index 10cc6fe..f038813 100644
--- a/common/config
+++ b/common/config
@@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ case "$HOSTOS" in
         ;;
     Linux)
         export MKFS_XFS_PROG="`set_prog_path mkfs.xfs`"
+        export MKFS_EXT4_PROG="`set_prog_path mkfs.ext4`"
         export MKFS_UDF_PROG="`set_prog_path mkudffs`"
         export MKFS_BTRFS_PROG="`set_btrfs_mkfs_prog_path_with_opts`"
         export BTRFS_UTIL_PROG="`set_prog_path btrfs`"
diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
index 16da898..285bd7c 100644
--- a/common/rc
+++ b/common/rc
@@ -105,6 +105,9 @@ case "$FSTYP" in
     btrfs)
 	 [ "$MKFS_BTRFS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.btrfs not found"
 	 ;;
+    ext4)
+	 [ "$MKFS_EXT4_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.ext4 not found"
+	 ;;
     nfs)
 	 ;;
 esac
@@ -451,7 +454,7 @@ _scratch_mkfs_ext4()
 
 	local tmp_dir=/tmp/
 
-	/sbin/mkfs -t ext4 -- -F $MKFS_OPTIONS $extra_mkfs_options $SCRATCH_DEV \
+	$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F $MKFS_OPTIONS $extra_mkfs_options $SCRATCH_DEV \
 			2>$tmp_dir.mkfserr 1>$tmp_dir.mkfsstd
 	local mkfs_status=$?
 
@@ -466,7 +469,7 @@ _scratch_mkfs_ext4()
 		) >> $seqres.full
 
 		# running mkfs again. overwrite previous mkfs output files
-		/sbin/mkfs -t ext4 -- -F $extra_mkfs_options $SCRATCH_DEV \
+		$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F $extra_mkfs_options $SCRATCH_DEV \
 				2>$tmp_dir.mkfserr 1>$tmp_dir.mkfsstd
 		local mkfs_status=$?
 	fi
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/012 b/tests/btrfs/012
index f7e5da5..124c8ae 100755
--- a/tests/btrfs/012
+++ b/tests/btrfs/012
@@ -55,7 +55,6 @@ _supported_os Linux
 _require_scratch
 
 BTRFS_CONVERT_PROG="`set_prog_path btrfs-convert`"
-MKFS_EXT4_PROG="`set_prog_path mkfs.ext4`"
 E2FSCK_PROG="`set_prog_path e2fsck`"
 
 _require_command $BTRFS_CONVERT_PROG btrfs-convert
diff --git a/tests/ext4/003 b/tests/ext4/003
index a2e9d75..53875a9 100755
--- a/tests/ext4/003
+++ b/tests/ext4/003
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ _require_ext4_bigalloc
 
 rm -f $seqres.full
 
-mkfs.ext4 -F -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
+$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
 	>> $seqres.full 2>&1
 _scratch_mount || _fail "couldn't mount fs"
 
diff --git a/tests/ext4/306 b/tests/ext4/306
index fd5c3a2..edc0204 100755
--- a/tests/ext4/306
+++ b/tests/ext4/306
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ _require_scratch
 rm -f $seqres.full
 
 # Make a small ext4 fs with extents disabled & mount it
-mkfs.ext4 -F -O ^extents,^64bit $SCRATCH_DEV 512m >> $seqres.full 2>&1
+$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -O ^extents,^64bit $SCRATCH_DEV 512m >> $seqres.full 2>&1
 _scratch_mount || _fail "couldn't mount fs"
 
 # Create a small non-extent-based file
-- 
2.1.0

[PATCH 2/2] ext4: speed up _require_ext4_bigalloc and _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc

[Theodore Ts'o]

We don't need to make a full-sized file system in order to test
whether "mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc" works.

Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
---
 common/rc | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
index 285bd7c..56e1847 100644
--- a/common/rc
+++ b/common/rc
@@ -1189,7 +1189,7 @@ _require_xfs_crc()
 #
 _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc()
 {
-	_scratch_mkfs_ext4 -O bigalloc >/dev/null 2>&1 \
+	$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -O bigalloc $SCRATCH_DEV 200k >/dev/null 2>&1 \
 	   || _notrun "mkfs.ext4 doesn't have bigalloc feature"
 }
 
@@ -1197,7 +1197,7 @@ _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc()
 #
 _require_ext4_bigalloc()
 {
-	_scratch_mkfs_ext4 -O bigalloc >/dev/null 2>&1
+	$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -O bigalloc $SCRATCH_DEV 200k >/dev/null 2>&1
 	_scratch_mount >/dev/null 2>&1 \
 	   || _notrun "Ext4 kernel doesn't support bigalloc feature"
 	umount $SCRATCH_MNT
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: speed up _require_ext4_bigalloc and _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc

[Dave Chinner]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:06:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> We don't need to make a full-sized file system in order to test
> whether "mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc" works.

Why wouldn't you just use the "-n" option? If bigalloc is not
supported, that should still fail, right?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: speed up _require_ext4_bigalloc and _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:50:00PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:06:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > We don't need to make a full-sized file system in order to test
> > whether "mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc" works.
> 
> Why wouldn't you just use the "-n" option? If bigalloc is not
> supported, that should still fail, right?

Good point.  We still need to make the file system for
_require_ext4_bigalloc, but there's no need to create one for
_require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc.

					- Ted

[PATCH -v2] ext4: speed up _require_ext4_bigalloc and _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc

[Theodore Ts'o]

We don't need to make a full-sized file system in order to test
whether "mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc" works.

Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
---
 common/rc | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
index 285bd7c..0baac86 100644
--- a/common/rc
+++ b/common/rc
@@ -1189,7 +1189,7 @@ _require_xfs_crc()
 #
 _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc()
 {
-	_scratch_mkfs_ext4 -O bigalloc >/dev/null 2>&1 \
+	$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -O bigalloc -n $SCRATCH_DEV 200k >/dev/null 2>&1 \
 	   || _notrun "mkfs.ext4 doesn't have bigalloc feature"
 }
 
@@ -1197,7 +1197,7 @@ _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc()
 #
 _require_ext4_bigalloc()
 {
-	_scratch_mkfs_ext4 -O bigalloc >/dev/null 2>&1
+	$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -O bigalloc $SCRATCH_DEV 200k >/dev/null 2>&1
 	_scratch_mount >/dev/null 2>&1 \
 	   || _notrun "Ext4 kernel doesn't support bigalloc feature"
 	umount $SCRATCH_MNT
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: define MKFS_EXT4_PROG and use it instead of "mkfs.ext4" / "mkfs -t ext4"

[Dave Chinner]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:06:07PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> ---
>  common/config   | 1 +
>  common/rc       | 7 +++++--
>  tests/btrfs/012 | 1 -
>  tests/ext4/003  | 2 +-
>  tests/ext4/306  | 2 +-
>  5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

This throws lots of rejects with all the other patches I've already
queued up. Can you rebase it and resend it when I push out my
current tree in the morning, Ted?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH -v2] ext4: speed up _require_ext4_bigalloc and _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:15:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> We don't need to make a full-sized file system in order to test
> whether "mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc" works.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

Got it - thanks for the quick turnaround.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH -v2] ext4: speed up _require_ext4_bigalloc and _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:36:02PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:15:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > We don't need to make a full-sized file system in order to test
> > whether "mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc" works.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> 
> Got it - thanks for the quick turnaround.

You're not going to apply this one until I send out the rebased
version of the 1/2 version of this patch series, right?  Because this
one depends on MKFS_EXT4_PROG...

					- Ted

Re: [PATCH -v2] ext4: speed up _require_ext4_bigalloc and _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:39:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:36:02PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:15:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > We don't need to make a full-sized file system in order to test
> > > whether "mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc" works.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> > 
> > Got it - thanks for the quick turnaround.
> 
> You're not going to apply this one until I send out the rebased
> version of the 1/2 version of this patch series, right?  Because this
> one depends on MKFS_EXT4_PROG...

No, I haven't applied it, just put it at the end of the patch
queue so I don't forget it...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH] ext4: use mkfs.ext4 -F instead of piping in yes

[Eryu Guan]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 08:29:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Using "yes | mkfs.ext4 ..." results in the error message results in
> the test failing, at least for some versions of e2fsprogs:
> 
>     +yes: standard output: Broken pipe
>     +yes: write error
> 
> It better to use the -F option, which will eliminate the questions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> Cc: Xiaoguang Wang <wangxg.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>

Thanks,
Eryu
> ---
>  tests/ext4/003 | 2 +-
>  tests/ext4/306 | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/ext4/003 b/tests/ext4/003
> index 572e685..a2e9d75 100755
> --- a/tests/ext4/003
> +++ b/tests/ext4/003
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ _require_ext4_bigalloc
>  
>  rm -f $seqres.full
>  
> -yes | mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
> +mkfs.ext4 -F -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
>  	>> $seqres.full 2>&1
>  _scratch_mount || _fail "couldn't mount fs"
>  
> diff --git a/tests/ext4/306 b/tests/ext4/306
> index fd50b0e..fd5c3a2 100755
> --- a/tests/ext4/306
> +++ b/tests/ext4/306
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ _require_scratch
>  rm -f $seqres.full
>  
>  # Make a small ext4 fs with extents disabled & mount it
> -yes | mkfs.ext4 -O ^extents,^64bit $SCRATCH_DEV 512m >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> +mkfs.ext4 -F -O ^extents,^64bit $SCRATCH_DEV 512m >> $seqres.full 2>&1
>  _scratch_mount || _fail "couldn't mount fs"
>  
>  # Create a small non-extent-based file
> -- 
> 2.1.0
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: define MKFS_EXT4_PROG and use it instead of "mkfs.ext4" / "mkfs -t ext4"

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:35:28PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:06:07PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> > ---
> >  common/config   | 1 +
> >  common/rc       | 7 +++++--
> >  tests/btrfs/012 | 1 -
> >  tests/ext4/003  | 2 +-
> >  tests/ext4/306  | 2 +-
> >  5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> This throws lots of rejects with all the other patches I've already
> queued up. Can you rebase it and resend it when I push out my
> current tree in the morning, Ted?

Hi Ted,

Can you send an update for this patch if you still need it?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: define MKFS_EXT4_PROG and use it instead of "mkfs.ext4" / "mkfs -t ext4"

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:11:41AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 
> Can you send an update for this patch if you still need it?

Thanks for pinging me; I've been so busy these past few weeks I forgot
to check to see if the fstests repo had been updated.  I see you did
so quite a while ago, my bad.

   	    	       	       	    	     - Ted