From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C907F4E for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:42:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9BA8F8052 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:41:54 -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 X62WNmcXDTXpMQdt for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:41:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:41:31 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfstests: do not unmount tmpfs during remount. Message-ID: <20131213014131.GP10988@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> <20131212225657.GK10988@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Junho Ryu Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Theodore Ts'o , Hugh Dickins , Boris Ranto , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 04:00:44PM -0800, Junho Ryu wrote: > > 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.... > > If it is acceptable that tmpfs running tests which does not make much > sense without actually re-mounting devices, all other developers need > to care is using _scratch_remount() and _test_remount(). And how are they to know whether it makes sense ot run on tmpfs or not? That's the point I'm trying to make - tmpfs adds new restrictions on how tests are written or constructed, and we still need a method of saying no to tmpfs.... > Even if someone does not use the functions, tests will only fail on > tmpfs, and people like me who cares about it will be happy to fix it. Yes, that's the game of whack-a-mole I was talking about. > So far, generic/053 is the only test which does something else between > umount and mount. All the generic tests that use dm_flakey are likely to be busted. Anything assumes SCRATCH_DEV or TEST_DEV are block devices are busted. Do loop devices work properly when hosted on tmpfs filesystems? And so on... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs