From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA76343159 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 03:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750909894; cv=none; b=CTG8UtsWEmh90V8KdgYEFbH3OLzePsK3zGPR28lXdnXExoOmLLNG07d3qTlMmE8AL4O71iea1gwJL2DWoZDp4Qx/FXEmj6k6U6rno6ySvH9G7J+2QS745r9VtQUAKmbHqXUurOVF8d2ABXu18IJ6OGzUgUXnmsJQrvXOHSPJW58= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750909894; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JYfr8hvw2247ZAEKYiu94IuzMfbVgKEUw2nztG6r+DI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ONXjeImrSq09NW5vwASvRykmz8KAAaXfq+P6Dc8my5RcrJ/pKasrbqWbRZWWuUNUEXEXjj2sYwvg13VsI6GOkK79JpfyMk4PxAaUkIbvV5UR7oGH/eD/4khmOp4tT7i/9vpKU42uIC6RolC47Y0+ShtbHrAzd0t+hqE+iIMByLY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Received: from trampoline.thunk.org (pool-173-48-82-219.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.82.219]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 55Q3pPL3025996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jun 2025 23:51:25 -0400 Received: by trampoline.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 35E712E00D5; Wed, 25 Jun 2025 23:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 23:51:25 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Leah Rumancik Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] common/rc: add repair fsck flag -f for ext4 Message-ID: <20250626035125.GA198321@mit.edu> References: <20250625212022.35111-1-leah.rumancik@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250625212022.35111-1-leah.rumancik@gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 02:20:22PM -0700, Leah Rumancik wrote: > There is a descrepancy between the fsck flags for ext4 during > filesystem repair and filesystem checking which causes occasional test > failures. In particular, _check_generic_filesystems uses -f for force > checking, but _repair_scratch_fs does not. In some tests, such as > generic/441, we sometimes exit fsck repair early with the filesystem > being deemed "clean" but then _check_generic_filesystems finds issues > during the forced full check. Bringing these flags in sync fixes the > flakes. > > Signed-off-by: Leah Rumancik Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o Looks good to me, although I might suggest ammending or just dropping the comment: > # Let's hope fsck -y suffices... ... since obviously, for ext[234] it wasn't sufficient. :-) - Ted