From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 q29Hfw2i007792 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:41:59 -0600 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id MxV8BcX7jnhzQO2M for ; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from liberator.sandeen.net (liberator.sandeen.net [10.0.0.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sandeen.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD6A49434E1 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:41:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4F5A40E5.8080609@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:41:57 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfstests - unchecked mount failures References: <20120309132828.GI4334@twin.jikos.cz> In-Reply-To: <20120309132828.GI4334@twin.jikos.cz> 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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 3/9/12 7:28 AM, David Sterba wrote: > Hi, > > I've encountered a bad situation when a failed mount in test 269 did not stop > the test and continued to use the mount point and exhausted space on the root > partition. A quick grep revealed that there are more tests with unchecked > _scratch_mount calls. > > The underlying problem with failed mount was observed when the mount comes in a > quick sequence after mount, I saw it with btrfs, and don't know if it affects > other filesystems. > > So, either all callers should check the return value or _scratch_mount > calls _fail. I'd go for the latter as it will make it more resilient > against unintentional ommision of checking the retval in new tests and > reviewer does not have keep that in mind. Sounds good to me; _test_mount() should probably do the same? I guess it'd be worth investigating exactly why it failed, though. Still, if you'd like to send a patch to _fail in the mount helpers if they fail, that sounds reasonable to me. Thanks, -Eric > > david > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs