Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fix to build src/realpath and the correct the existence of target devices

From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: sat <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>, xfs mailing list <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fix to build src/realpath and the correct the existence of target devices
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:53:08 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50AB8B44.6000500@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50AB1502.2030603@sandeen.net>

On 11/19/2012 11:28 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/19/12 10:30 PM, sat wrote:
>> (2012/11/20 13:06), Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> On 11/18/12 9:26 PM, sat wrote:
>>>> Hi Rich, Eric
>>>>
>>>> (2012/10/27 1:46), Rich Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On 06/08/2010 03:03 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>>>> If you try running xfstests on lvm volumes which are symlinks,
>>>>>> it'll fail to run several tests because our _require_scratch
>>>>>> framework ultimately uses lstat not stat, and does not think
>>>>>> the lvm device (which is usually a symlink to a dm-X device)
>>>>>> is a block device.  Sigh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last try at this - just resolve any symlinked devicenames
>>>>>> into their realpath(3) in common.config.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This actually seems to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/common.config b/common.config
>>>>>> index 926846b..e5b2483 100644
>>>>>> --- a/common.config
>>>>>> +++ b/common.config
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks good
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric,
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch has been committed to git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests, master branch, commit ID d5ea873f.
>>>>
>>>> From: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>>>
>>>> Commit d5ea873f is not the same as the the following original Eric's patch.
>>>>
>>>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00080.html
>>>>
>>>> It does not modify src/Makefile and realpath is never compiled.
>>>
>>> Yep, whoops.  Merge error . . .?

Yes sorry my bad.

>>>
>>>> In addition, `[ -L $TEST_DEV ]' and `[ -L $SCRATCH_DEV ]' always returns 0
>>>> if $TEST_DEV or $SCRATCH_DEV are not defined.
>>>
>>> Well, I don't think ./check will get very far with an undefined TEST_DEV or
>>> SCRATCH_DEV, but better this way, thanks.
>>
>> I think so too. But setting $SCRATCH_DEV is optional anyaway (refer to README).
>> I forgot to specify $SCRATCH_DEV and found this problem.
>
> Ah, right - yes, that's perfectly valid, sorry.  Not thinking straight :)
>
> -Eric

Eric, do you have time to correct these 2 errors or do want me submit a 
patch?

>
>> Satoru
>>
>>
>

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