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 E15C129E03 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 20:26:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4FDAC006 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 18:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Q1EmHHVFzHq86Eby for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 18:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:26:21 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: generic/258 questions (mount issue)... Message-ID: <20130522012620.GA29466@dastard> References: <519C14A1.8000009@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <519C14A1.8000009@gmail.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: "Michael L. Semon" Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 08:43:13PM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote: > Hi! When using xfstests generic/258 with along with $TEST_RTDEV > $TEST_LOGDEV, it tends to scream bloody murder about corrupted > partitions and such. In fact, the commands in the test seem to do > the right thing when executed by hand. So once again, I grasped for > straws and came up with this: > > --- xfstests/tests/generic/258.orig 2013-05-21 20:19:38.430754829 -0400 > +++ xfstests/tests/generic/258 2013-05-21 20:10:11.509021368 -0400 > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ > # unmount, remount, and check the timestamp > echo "Remounting to flush cache" > umount $TEST_DEV > -mount $TEST_DEV $TEST_DIR > +_test_mount > > # Should yield -315593940 (prior to epoch) > echo "Testing for negative seconds since epoch" > > My questions are these: > > 1) Was there a better way to do this? No, your change is correct. Can you clean up the description of the problem you had and add a Signed-off-by? > 2) Not knowing the policy on umounting $TEST_DEV, could this have > been a test for $SCRATCH_DEV? There are a handful of other tests that also unmount the TEST_DEV. Perhaps adding a _test_umount() wrapper to common/rc (similar to _scratch_umount) would be best. At least shared/243 needs the same _test_mount treatment as this test. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs