From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32B97F7C for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:44:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9408D304059 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id oFfE3feWHpaoOdy7 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:44:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E9761F.7070903@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:43:59 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: avoid ext4/306 failures caused by incompatible mount options References: <20140129204502.GC2165@wallace> <20140129213838.GF30419@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20140129213838.GF30419@thunk.org> Reply-To: sandeen@redhat.com 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: Theodore Ts'o , Eric Whitney Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On 1/29/14, 3:38 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:45:02PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote: >> ext4/306 will fail when mounting the ext3 file system it creates if an >> ext3-incompatible mount option is applied by _scratch_mount. This can >> happen if EXT_MOUNT_OPTIONS is defined appropriately in the test >> environment. For example, the block_validity option is commonly used >> to enhance ext4 testing, and it is not supported by ext3. Fix this by >> not including any mount options defined by the test environment. > > I'm not sure I understand why the test is insisting that the file > system be mounted using ext3. If the file system is created without > the extents flag, all of the files will be created using indirect > blocks, and fundamentally what this test is getting at is that after > we grow the file system using resize2fs, the new blocks are available > to be allocated and attached to an indirect block file. > > We can do this by using ext4; I'm not sure why this test is trying to > use ext3 to set up the test flie system. It might be better to get > rid of the requirement to create the file system using ext3, since it > will make the test runnable even if the ext3 file system hasn't been > configured into the system and CONFIG_EXT23_AS_EXT4 is not enabled. > > IIRC, Eric Sandeen wrote this test --- Eric, am I missing some reason > why it was necessary to use ext3 here? Nope. Tomayto, tomahto - I think the original report had trouble with an ext3 filesystem, so that's how I wrote the testcase. It could be fixed either way, I think. -Eric > > - Ted > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs