From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 13:05:23 -0800 Message-ID: <20130304210522.GA7783@localhost> References: <1362269150-21478-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <20130303011917.GI23616@dastard> <20130303100254.500b076f@spider.haslach.nod.at> <5133C900.9050300@sandeen.net> <20130303231905.0efd6d08@spider.haslach.nod.at> <5133D15A.9010600@sandeen.net> <20130303235341.7470085e@spider.haslach.nod.at> <5133D573.3050106@sandeen.net> <20130304004229.GK23616@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Sandeen , Richard Weinberger , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:34705 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758751Ab3CDVFg (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:05:36 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130304004229.GK23616@dastard> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:42:29AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 04:57:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 3/3/13 4:53 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > > > >> Anyway, what if you did something more along the lines of [pseudocode] > > >> > > >> ocfs2) > > >> if mounted.ocfs2 -f $TEST-DEV | frob_as_necessary[1] > > >> ; > > >> else > > >> fsck.ocfs2 $TEST-DEV > > >> fi > > >> ;; > > >> > > >> so that *if* it's mounted on some other node, the fsck won't run. > > >> That has downsides as Dave mentioned, but for the case where the > > >> xfstests node is the only one with it in use, it'll still do the > > >> beneficial consistency check. > > >> > > >> Just tweaking the fsck action bsed on *if* it's mounted (or, > > >> maybe, if the node is in a cluster?) might be a more generic solution > > >> that is widely applicable to all ocfs2 test environments. > > > > > > Good point. mounted.ocfs2 really makes sense. I'll implement this on my > > > test suite and submit a new patch. > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > It'd be most preferable to do a cluster-wide unmount and fsck, > > Which makes no sense to me, because ./check will then do a cluster > wide unmount as it runs the test harness initialisation. Hence all > the subsequent tests will run with the filesystem only mounted on > the local node.... > > Really, xfstests is not designed for testing cluster filesystems in > clustered environments. If we really want to support clustered > filesystems and cluster wide operations, then we need to think > about how to architect multi-host support into xfstests sanely. > Clustered filesystems are not the only people that could make use of > such functionality (NFS and CIFS come to mind).... ;) I'm much happier with the "check for other cluster mounts" approach rather than avoiding fsck entirely. We like xfstests in the local or single-node cases to behave exactly as one would expect. We do run xfstests on multiple nodes in a cluster, but by hand and with our own cleanup. Obviously support for automating that would be awesome :-) Joel > > Cheers, > > Dave/ > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- "Born under a bad sign. I been down since I began to crawl. If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all." http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec@evilplan.org