From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF4F7F51 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:57:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C08530406A for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:57:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id EQmJ0y3aKCjSU7Wy for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:57:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:56:57 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfstests: do not unmount tmpfs during remount. Message-ID: <20131212225657.GK10988@dastard> References: <1386706321-15795-1-git-send-email-jayr@google.com> <1386706321-15795-6-git-send-email-jayr@google.com> <20131211074615.GE19248@infradead.org> <20131211224012.GJ10988@dastard> <20131212180130.GA19422@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131212180130.GA19422@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Junho Ryu , hughd@google.com, tytso@mit.edu, branto@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:01:30AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:40:12AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > IOWs, adding tmpfs changes the definition of a "generic" test. > > > > i.e. instead of: > > > > _supported_fs generic > > > > these tests are now: > > > > _supported_fs xfs ext2 ext3 ext4 ext4dev btrfs gfs2 nfs udf reiserfs > > > > and by that definition should be in the tests/shared directory.... > > > > That's a bit of a pain, but I really don't like the idea of having > > "generic" tests that aren't actually generic by having to define > > exceptions for them... > > We already have tons of these: Yes, but that's not the same situation as tmpfs here. A generic filesystem fits a certain model but the given configuration/kernel does not necessarily support the feature being tested. Those features are easily testable by a _requires_* line. This case with tmpfs is different - it doesn't support *being unmounted* during a test because it is volatile. That's a fundamental change to the assumptions xfstests makes about filesystems being tested. IOWs, we've got a "generic" filesystem that is anything but generic. Adding "_requires_non_volatile_fs" to all the generic tests that do an unmount so that tmpfs can be considered "generic" is just as painful as modifying the "_supported_fs generic" lines in all the tests. It just leads us to a game of whack-a-mole. I don't know what the solution here is - everything I think of is either messy, ugly or unmaintainable. All I'm trying to do is find a way to handle tmpfs filesystems in a way that is maintainable and doesn't require every developer to be aware of the quirks of tmpfs when writing and reviewing new generic tests.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs