From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add disk failure simulation test Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:15:46 -0600 Message-ID: <511CFFA2.8030905@redhat.com> References: <1360770097-6351-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <511BBF33.20908@redhat.com> <87621vngtw.fsf@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com To: Dmitry Monakhov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87621vngtw.fsf@openvz.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 2/14/13 7:52 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:28:35 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 2/13/13 9:41 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: >>> +# get standard environment, filters and checks >>> +. ./common.rc >>> +. ./common.filter >>> + >>> +# TODO move it to common.blkdev if necessery >> >> maybe a comment as to why you do this? (presumably to find the right thing in /sys) >> I hope this always works with all udev schemes etc? > I just ment to say that functions below are good candidates to became > common wrappers. Sure, but what is the reason for the wrapper? On inspection I think its' because you need the right sysfs name; it'd just be nice to say that it's the reason for the readlink/basename frobbing of the existing $SCRATCH_DEV. Not a huge deal. >>> +SCRATCH_REAL_DEV=`readlink -f $SCRATCH_DEV` >>> +SCRATCH_BDEV=`basename $SCRATCH_REAL_DEV` >>> + >>> +_require_debugfs() >>> +{ >>> + #boot_params always present in debugfs >>> + [ -d "$DEBUGFS_MNT/boot_params" ] || _notrun "Debugfs not mounted" >>> +} >> >> Would it make more sense to look for debugfs in /proc/filesystems >> as a test for it being *available* (as opposed to mounted somewhere?) >> >> I wonder if a helper (maybe in _require_debugfs) should work out if >> it's mounted, if not, try to mount it, and in the end, export DEBUGFS_MNT >> for any test that wants to use it. >> >> Otherwise if it happens to be mounted elsewhere, this'll all fail. >> Just a thought. Maybe that's unusual enough that there's no point. >> But getting it mounted if it's not would be helpful I think. Any thoughts on this? As it stands it requires debugfs to be at /sys/kernel/debug (by default) *and* mounted prior to the test run. So it's another (maybe unexpected) piece of pre-test setup which might result in this test not getting run. -Eric