From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id
	o311O3Ku073094 for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:24:03 -0500
Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 19059293BA0
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sandeen.net (64-131-60-146.usfamily.net [64.131.60.146])
	by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id d0tlmEEnxNNy2urj for
	<xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BB3F61D.3020507@sandeen.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:25:49 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: exit non-0 if fs check fails
References: <4BB3DCEF.8040704@redhat.com> <20100401001956.GL7671@dastard>
In-Reply-To: <20100401001956.GL7671@dastard>
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>

Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 06:38:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Right now if any of the _check_scratch_fs tests etc fail,
>> the check script exits but with 0 status.
>>
>> This change will cause the status to be non-0 so we can detect
>> the error.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to do:
> 
> -   [ $ok -eq 0 ] && exit 1
> +    if [ $ok -eq 0 ]; then
> +	status=1
> +	exit 1
> +    fi
> 
> To catch all failures rather than just the fsck failure?

sure, that sounds better.  I'll check that version in w/ your SOB
unless I hear otherwise :)

Thanks,
-Eric

>> ---
>>
>> (aside - we could make it 2 instead of 1, so that a calling script
>> could fsck and continue ... thoughts?)
> 
> I think if a test corrupts a filesystem, the test run should stop
> so the failure can be analysed without needing to reproduce it
> again...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.

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