public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Junho Ryu <jayr@google.com>,
	hughd@google.com, branto@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfstests: do not unmount tmpfs during remount.
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:56:03 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131213045603.GG23888@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131212225657.GK10988@dastard>

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 09:56:57AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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....
> 
> 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....

There should be a relatively small number of reasons why a generic
test would need to umount and remount a file system; the most common
case is so it can run fsck on the file system.

What's actually strange is that is that generic/053 is explicitly
umounting and remounting the file system:

_do 'unmount $SCRATCH_DEV' 'umount $SCRATCH_DEV'
_do 'repair filesystem' '_check_scratch_fs'
_do 'mount filesytem' '_scratch_mount'

In fact, that's not necessary, because _check_test_fs and
_check_scratch_fs will take care of umounting and remounting the file
system.  So if this is the only problem case which Junho has found,
why not just patch generic/053 so it doesn't explicitly umount and
remount the file system, since we've already taught _check_*_fs to be
a no-op for tmpfs.

As for dm_flakey, tests, we can just have _require_dm_flaky be false
for tmpfs file system.

So we're still playing whack-a-mole, yes, but on classes of test
requirements instead of individual tests.  If we address the
umount/remount for fsck and dm_flakey, are there other significant
classes of tests that would still be problematic for tmpfs?

						- Ted

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-12-13  4:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-10 20:11 [PATCH 00/10] Add tmpfs filesystem support Junho Ryu
2013-12-10 20:11 ` [PATCH 01/10] xfstests: Add tmpfs support Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:40   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-17 16:40   ` Rich Johnston
2013-12-10 20:11 ` [PATCH 02/10] xfstests: use mount point instead of device name Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-10 20:11 ` [PATCH 03/10] xfstests: _scratch_mkfs_sized() for tmpfs Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:44   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-10 20:11 ` [PATCH 04/10] xfstests: increase tmpfs memory size Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:44   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-10 20:11 ` [PATCH 05/10] xfstests: do not unmount tmpfs during remount Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:46   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-11 22:40     ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-12  0:16       ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-12-12  0:53         ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:01       ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 22:56         ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-13  0:00           ` Junho Ryu
2013-12-13  1:41             ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-13 11:12               ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-13  4:56           ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2013-12-13 11:04           ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-10 20:11 ` [PATCH 06/10] xfstests: fix generic/225 to check fiemap support Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:46   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-11 22:42     ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:01       ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 22:44         ` Junho Ryu
2013-12-12 23:00           ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-10 20:11 ` [PATCH 07/10] xfstests: fix generic/127 to call _cleanup() only once Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:47   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-10 20:11 ` [PATCH 08/10] xfstests: check O_DIRECT support before testing direct I/O Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:47   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-10 20:12 ` [PATCH 09/10] xfstests: add executable permission to tests Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:48   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-10 20:12 ` [PATCH 10/10] xfstests: skip parts of tests which cannot work on tmpfs Junho Ryu
2013-12-11  7:51   ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20131213045603.GG23888@thunk.org \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=branto@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=jayr@google.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox