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 A3AA37F4E for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:56:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9333A8F8052 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wZx1tuQj2V16aYtq (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:56:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:56:03 -0500 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfstests: do not unmount tmpfs during remount. Message-ID: <20131213045603.GG23888@thunk.org> 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: <20131212225657.GK10988@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Junho Ryu , hughd@google.com, branto@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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