From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A475C8024 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:57:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB161AC001 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 14:57:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id x1Q3E9mecoCCVHII for ; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:57:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5133D573.3050106@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2 References: <1362269150-21478-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <20130303011917.GI23616@dastard> <20130303100254.500b076f@spider.haslach.nod.at> <5133C900.9050300@sandeen.net> <20130303231905.0efd6d08@spider.haslach.nod.at> <5133D15A.9010600@sandeen.net> <20130303235341.7470085e@spider.haslach.nod.at> In-Reply-To: <20130303235341.7470085e@spider.haslach.nod.at> 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: Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On 3/3/13 4:53 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Anyway, what if you did something more along the lines of [pseudocode] >> >> ocfs2) >> if mounted.ocfs2 -f $TEST-DEV | frob_as_necessary[1] >> ; >> else >> fsck.ocfs2 $TEST-DEV >> fi >> ;; >> >> so that *if* it's mounted on some other node, the fsck won't run. >> That has downsides as Dave mentioned, but for the case where the >> xfstests node is the only one with it in use, it'll still do the >> beneficial consistency check. >> >> Just tweaking the fsck action bsed on *if* it's mounted (or, >> maybe, if the node is in a cluster?) might be a more generic solution >> that is widely applicable to all ocfs2 test environments. > > Good point. mounted.ocfs2 really makes sense. I'll implement this on my > test suite and submit a new patch. Sounds good to me. It'd be most preferable to do a cluster-wide unmount and fsck, but if that's unfeasible, then skipping the fsck (with a warning) is still preferable to simply disabling it outright for everyone. Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs