From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298DA29E05 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:15:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0585304032 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com (mx4-phx2.redhat.com [209.132.183.25]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VE0l6kRgOkc4NR6L (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 12:14:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Jan Tulak Message-ID: <2084199601.25014496.1436372096546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150702230520.GA22807@dastard> References: <1434711726-13092-1-git-send-email-jtulak@redhat.com> <1434711726-13092-2-git-send-email-jtulak@redhat.com> <20150625193748.GE36162@bfoster.bfoster> <413545489.22844725.1435841273912.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20150702141403.GA61817@bfoster.bfoster> <20150702230520.GA22807@dastard> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] xfsprogs: use common code for multi-disk detection MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Brian Foster , Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Chinner" > At one point during development of this patch set I started writing > an xfstest to validate that mkfs did all the right input validation > things and set parameters appropriately so that we didn't > inadvertently change behaviour. I never really finished it off (like > the patch set), but I've attached it below to give an idea of where > I was going with it. It was based on validating the input and CLI > parameters for the new code, so is guaranteed to fail on an existing > mkfs binary. I'm using and extending it, but I'm not sure about some tests, whether it is a change from current behaviour, or if it is rather an issue in the test. > + > +# basic "should fail" options > +# logarithm based options are no longer valid > +do_mkfs_fail -s log=9 $SCRATCH_DEV There are some changes in logarithm input (mkfs: validate logarithmic parameters sanely), but it is still supported in the patches. Is there some issue, why to remove them? Otherwise, it should rather test for (in)valid input for log=xxx, right? > +rm -f $fsimg > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "truncate $fssize" $fsimg > +do_mkfs_pass -d file $fsimg > +do_mkfs_pass -d file,name=$fsimg > +rm -f $fsimg > +do_mkfs_pass -d size=$fssize,file $fsimg > +rm -f $fsimg > +do_mkfs_pass -d size=$fssize,file,name=$fsimg > +do_mkfs_pass -d file,name=$fsimg Should all these inputs really pass? What is the expected behaviour for example on -d file,name=$fsimg if the file exists, and what if there is no such file? Cheers, Jan -- Jan Tulak jtulak@redhat.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs