From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfstests: loop devices vs umount stupidity
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:27:06 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120816222706.GW2877@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <502D470C.6070506@sgi.com>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:16:28PM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 03:35 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >
> >Unmounting a fileystem mounted on a loop device doesn't always tear
> >down the loop device. Its racy, and it causes tests to randomly
> >fail.
> >
> >To avoid that, we have to use umount -d to ensure that we destroy
> >loop devices under filesystems in case the kernel doesn't tear it
> >down automatically to prevent the test from failing. However, if
> >the kernel does tear it down automatically, umount now issues a
> >warning that it couldn't tear down the loop device because it
> >couldn't find it, and that causes the test to fail. *facepalm*
> >
> >So, convert all the loop device unmounts to use -d, and direct the
> >output of all of them to /dev/null.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
.....
>
> Test 250 Fails but a bug is already created for this, PV1026237.
News to me. Recording failures in non-public bug trackers, and then
alluding to it via a number that nobody can look up is not very
helpful. If you are going to track mainline kernel
failures/regressions in a bug tracker, please use the oss.sgi.com
bugzilla so that the issues are publicly visible....
> Other than that it looks good and the bug is not related to this
> patch, so ...
.... what is the failure you are seeing?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-16 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-26 8:35 [PATCH 0/4] xfstests: random fixes and improvements Dave Chinner
2012-07-26 8:35 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfstests: test 110 sometimes fails to unmount scratch dev Dave Chinner
2012-08-16 19:16 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-08-28 20:20 ` Ben Myers
2012-07-26 8:35 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfstests: loop devices vs umount stupidity Dave Chinner
2012-08-16 19:16 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-16 22:27 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-08-17 12:45 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:35 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfstests: _check_quota_usage needs to unmount to get XFS quotacheck Dave Chinner
2012-07-26 22:55 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-16 19:16 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:35 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfstests: speed up 227 by using preallocation Dave Chinner
2012-08-16 19:16 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-08-14 21:39 ` [PATCH 0/4] xfstests: random fixes and improvements Dave Chinner
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=20120816222706.GW2877@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=rjohnston@sgi.com \
--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