From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3E4805C for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:57:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B6CAC003 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:57:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [195.92.253.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lB1hIsls47RV3QH4 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:57:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:57:24 -0800 From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2 Message-ID: <20130304225724.GB7783@localhost> References: <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> <20130304210522.GA7783@localhost> <20130304230922.20f6c05a@spider.haslach.nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130304230922.20f6c05a@spider.haslach.nod.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Mon, 4 Mar 2013 13:05:23 -0800 > schrieb Joel Becker : > > > 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 :-) > > Can you share your cleanup code? It's not code, unless you count DNA and neuron connections... Joel > > Thanks, > //richard > -- > 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 -- Life's Little Instruction Book #139 "Never deprive someone of hope; it might be all they have." http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec@evilplan.org _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs