Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:08:46AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/30/12 10:06 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> This will cause the $SCRATCH_DEV to be fscked if it was used in
> >> the prior test.  Without this I don't think it gets done unless
> >> specifically requested by the test.
> > 
> > This one looks good.
> 
> Hm now that I think of it perhaps I should remove the explicit
> _check_scratch-es if they happen at the end of the run, just to
> try to speed things up.

*nod*

> >> Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck doesn't
> >> complain.
> > 
> > This one I can't make any sense of.  Care to send it separately
> > with a good explanation?
> > 
> 
> Ok, sure.
> 
> Basically, test does an rm -rf of the scrach mnt, but e2fsck
> thinks that a missing lost+found/ is cause for complaint and a
> failure exit code, which then stops the tests :(

Shouldn't e2fsck be fixed? i.e. if you have a corrupted filesystem
and it's missing lost+found, how are you expected to create it? by
mounting your corrupted filesystem and modifying it and potentially
making the corruption worse?

> (hum, now that I think about it, maybe a broken scratch device
> shouldn't stop the test series, but should just log a test
> failure?  What do you think?)

Stop it - we should be leaving a corpse that we can dissect to find
out what went wrong. For a corrupted scratch filesystem, running
another test will eat the slowly rotting corpse and leave nothing
useful behind for diagnosing the failure...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs