public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] common: _notrun if _scratch_mkfs_xfs failed
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:11:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240726181139.GA28749@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240726171434.kwgmlksglw4yolyb@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com>

On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 01:14:34AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> So most of cases (on xfs) will be not changed, only those cases call
> _scratch_mkfs_xfs directly will be _notrun (if it fails to mkfs before).

Yes.

> I'm still thinking about if this behavior is needed. Last time we
> just let _scratch_mkfs_sized calls _fail if it fails to mkfs. And
> we hope to get a fail report generally, if a mkfs fails. But
> now we hope to _notrun? With this patchset, some mkfs failures will
> cause _fail, but some will cause _notrun. There'll be two kind of
> behaviors.

Only the ones that have explicit fail code.

But yes, that change is the point of this series - incompatible
options will cause mkfs to fail, and the reason for that is that
the test case can't work for that configuration.  We could try
to explicitly catch those cases, but it would be pretty messy.
(We actually do that for a bunch of tests, and it doesn't look
very nice)


  reply	other threads:[~2024-07-26 18:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-23  0:00 RFC: don't fail tests when mkfs options collide Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-23  0:00 ` [PATCH 1/4] common: _notrun if _scratch_mkfs_sized failed Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-23  0:00 ` [PATCH 2/4] common: _notrun if _scratch_mkfs_xfs failed Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-26 17:14   ` Zorro Lang
2024-07-26 18:11     ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2024-07-28 14:54   ` Zorro Lang
2024-07-29 14:17     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-23  0:00 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfs/432: use _scratch_mkfs_xfs Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-23  0:00 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs/516: " Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-23  3:50 ` RFC: don't fail tests when mkfs options collide Theodore Ts'o
2024-07-23 13:39   ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-23 14:17     ` Theodore Ts'o
2024-07-23 14:20       ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-26 16:20       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-07-26 17:11         ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-28  2:24           ` Darrick J. Wong
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-08-07 14:35 Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-07 14:35 ` [PATCH 2/4] common: _notrun if _scratch_mkfs_xfs failed 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=20240726181139.GA28749@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=zlang@redhat.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