* [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used @ 2012-11-29 18:59 Eric Sandeen 2012-11-30 16:06 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-11-29 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs-oss This will cause the $SCRATCH_DEV to be fscked if it was used in the prior test. Without this I don't think it gets done unless specifically requested by the test. Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck doesn't complain. Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> --- diff --git a/check b/check index a4af0f6..343735a 100755 --- a/check +++ b/check @@ -308,6 +308,9 @@ do try="$try $seq" n_try=`expr $n_try + 1` _check_test_fs + if grep -q require_scratch $seq; then + _check_scratch_fs + fi fi seq="after_$seq" diff --git a/062 b/062 index 9800e33..b727243 100755 --- a/062 +++ b/062 @@ -216,6 +216,9 @@ if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then exit fi +# So e2fsck won't complain: +[[ $FSTYP = ext* ]] && mkdir $SCRATCH_MNT/lost+found + # success, all done status=0 exit _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used 2012-11-29 18:59 [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used Eric Sandeen @ 2012-11-30 16:06 ` Christoph Hellwig 2012-11-30 16:08 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2012-11-30 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs-oss 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. > 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? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used 2012-11-30 16:06 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2012-11-30 16:08 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-11-30 22:27 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-11-30 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: xfs-oss 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. >> 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 :( (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?) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used 2012-11-30 16:08 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2012-11-30 22:27 ` Dave Chinner 2012-11-30 22:29 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2012-11-30 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs-oss 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used 2012-11-30 22:27 ` Dave Chinner @ 2012-11-30 22:29 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-12-03 14:03 ` Carlos Maiolino 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-11-30 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs-oss On 11/30/12 4:27 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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* I'll send as another patch; I don't think there are really very many TBH. >>>> 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? No, e2fsck fixes it, but reports that as an exit error condition even if nothing else is found. >> (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... True, in most cases you could re-run the test, but maybe not. Ok, will leave that as-is. -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used 2012-11-30 22:29 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2012-12-03 14:03 ` Carlos Maiolino 2012-12-03 18:56 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Carlos Maiolino @ 2012-12-03 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs-oss > >>> 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* > > I'll send as another patch; I don't think there are really very > many TBH. > > >>>> 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? > > No, e2fsck fixes it, but reports that as an exit error condition > even if nothing else is found. > I know lots of users who use to just delete lost+found directory, so making the lack of l+f an error is wrong. IMHO, there is no reason to report an error when a l+f is not found, unless you need to recover orphan'ed inodes, I've never seen any other usage for it, unless during FS recovery time. (maybe I lack some knowledge of another usages for lost+found directory?) So, I believe that might be useful to print a warning about it, but consider it as an error is wrong IMHO. -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used 2012-12-03 14:03 ` Carlos Maiolino @ 2012-12-03 18:56 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-12-03 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carlos Maiolino; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs-oss On 12/3/12 8:03 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote: >>>>> 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* >> >> I'll send as another patch; I don't think there are really very >> many TBH. >> >>>>>> 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? >> >> No, e2fsck fixes it, but reports that as an exit error condition >> even if nothing else is found. >> > > I know lots of users who use to just delete lost+found directory, so making the > lack of l+f an error is wrong. > IMHO, there is no reason to report an error when a l+f is not found, unless you > need to recover orphan'ed inodes, I've never seen any other usage for it, unless > during FS recovery time. (maybe I lack some knowledge of another usages for > lost+found directory?) > > So, I believe that might be useful to print a warning about it, but consider it > as an error is wrong IMHO. I agree, maybe we can change that in e2fsck, and not bother creating it unless some other error means we need it. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-12-03 18:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-11-29 18:59 [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used Eric Sandeen 2012-11-30 16:06 ` Christoph Hellwig 2012-11-30 16:08 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-11-30 22:27 ` Dave Chinner 2012-11-30 22:29 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-12-03 14:03 ` Carlos Maiolino 2012-12-03 18:56 ` Eric Sandeen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox