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 95F9B29DF8 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:58:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C02AAC001 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VNNSpDL7CagvTKWC (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 9so6730319iec.36 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519D4D87.2070806@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:58:15 -0400 From: "Michael L. Semon" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: generic/258 questions (mount issue)... References: <519C14A1.8000009@gmail.com> <20130522012620.GA29466@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20130522012620.GA29466@dastard> 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 05/21/2013 09:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 08:43:13PM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote: >> Hi! When using xfstests generic/258 with along with $TEST_RTDEV >> $TEST_LOGDEV, it tends to scream bloody murder about corrupted >> partitions and such. In fact, the commands in the test seem to do >> the right thing when executed by hand. So once again, I grasped for >> straws and came up with this: >> >> --- xfstests/tests/generic/258.orig 2013-05-21 20:19:38.430754829 -0400 >> +++ xfstests/tests/generic/258 2013-05-21 20:10:11.509021368 -0400 >> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ >> # unmount, remount, and check the timestamp >> echo "Remounting to flush cache" >> umount $TEST_DEV >> -mount $TEST_DEV $TEST_DIR >> +_test_mount >> >> # Should yield -315593940 (prior to epoch) >> echo "Testing for negative seconds since epoch" >> >> My questions are these: >> >> 1) Was there a better way to do this? > > No, your change is correct. Can you clean up the description of the > problem you had and add a Signed-off-by? > >> 2) Not knowing the policy on umounting $TEST_DEV, could this have >> been a test for $SCRATCH_DEV? > > There are a handful of other tests that also unmount the TEST_DEV. > Perhaps adding a _test_umount() wrapper to common/rc (similar to > _scratch_umount) would be best. At least shared/243 needs the same > _test_mount treatment as this test. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > I have a simple _test_mount change in shared/243, tested and ready to post. However, it may work the same either way. AFAIK, the test seems to go like this: xfs_io this; if ( ext4 ) { umount; do some unmounted ext4 stuff; mount -t ${FSTYP} ...; } xfs_io that; if ( ext4 ) { ... } ... So if it isn't ext4 being tested, $TEST_DEV is not umounted at all. Until I got a closer look at this, it was a surprise to see the XFS+rtdev+logdev pass without changes. The rest of your comments will be followed when I get home. To use the external logdev means a 20%-30% improvement in some test results on XFS. To get the other file systems to do this will certainly have me looking at the $TEST_DEV mount and umount code anyway. Thanks! Michael _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs