From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57248 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726856AbfFYHLV (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:11:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:16:39 +0800 From: Zorro Lang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: test xfs_info on block device and mountpoint Message-ID: <20190625071639.GG30864@dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com> References: <20190622153827.4448-1-zlang@redhat.com> <20190623214919.GD5387@magnolia> <20190624012103.GF30864@dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com> <20190625024546.GO15846@desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190625024546.GO15846@desktop> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: guaneryu@gmail.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:45:46AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 09:21:03AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 02:49:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 11:38:27PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > There was a bug, xfs_info fails on a mounted block device: > > > > > > > > # xfs_info /dev/mapper/testdev > > > > xfs_info: /dev/mapper/testdev contains a mounted filesystem > > > > > > > > fatal error -- couldn't initialize XFS library > > > > > > > > xfsprogs has fixed it by: > > > > > > > > bbb43745 xfs_info: use findmnt to handle mounted block devices > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang > > > > > > Aha! I remembered something -- xfs/449 already checks for consistency > > > in the various xfs geometry reports that each command provides, so why > > > not just add the $XFS_INFO_PROG $SCRATCH_DEV case at the end? Hmm... But I hope the case can keep running xfs_info test even there're not xfs_spaceman -c "info" or xfs_db -c "info", just skip these two steps. Due to RHEL-7 has old xfsprogs, we'd like to cover bug on RHEL-7. What do you think? > > > > Wow, there're so many cases, can't sure what we've covered now:) > > > > Sure, I can do this change on xfs/449, if Eryu thinks it's fine to increase > > the test coverage of a known case. > > Given that we're having more and more tests and the test time grows > quickly, I'm fine now with adding such small & similar test to existing > test case to reuse the test setups, especially when XFS maintainer > agrees to do so :) > > Thanks, > Eryu