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 4AE7C7F37 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 16:49:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9550AC009 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2vLYNzhcivW9CKDE for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 14:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 07:49:08 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 311: fsck the dmflakey device instead of the real device Message-ID: <20130514214908.GL29466@dastard> References: <1368563722-23452-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1368563722-23452-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> 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: Josef Bacik Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 04:35:22PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Dave pointed out that xfs was having issues with 311 because of caching issues. > He suggested that I fsck the dm-flakey device to make sure we don't have this > problem. This is the easiest way I could think to accomplish this, please let > me know if this is a bad idea. Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik > --- > tests/generic/311 | 3 +++ > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/generic/311 b/tests/generic/311 > index 2b3b569..f11119b 100644 > --- a/tests/generic/311 > +++ b/tests/generic/311 > @@ -125,7 +125,10 @@ _run_test() > > #Unmount and fsck to make sure we got a valid fs after replay > _unmount_flakey > + tmp=$SCRATCH_DEV > + SCRATCH_DEV=$FLAKEY_DEV > _check_scratch_fs > + SCRATCH_DEV=$tmp > [ $? -ne 0 ] && _fatal "fsck failed" I think this can be done with a pretty simple change to _check_scratch_fs. i.e. pass the device to be checked in as a parameter, and if the parameter is not set, have _check_scratch_fs default to using $SCRATCH_DEV. It's a one-line change to 311, and about 10 lines of (simple) change to _check_scratch_fs.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs