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 543D77F51 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 20:52:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B85304043 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 18:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id RiCOglGMOVjUObb4 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 18:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53BDF1D2.6000204@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 20:52:18 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: Check fs consistency on TEST_DEV only when needed References: <1403617014-17870-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1403617014-17870-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <20140710010711.GJ4453@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20140710010711.GJ4453@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 , Lukas Czerner Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On 7/9/14, 8:07 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > Reducing runtime of the test harness is a good idea, but we should > not do that if the cost is that it reduces the reliability of error > detection. Still, this could have a really big impact, especially on filesystems with slow fsck. It'd be great to find a way to make this reliable. It's kind of a historical accident that "test" is always mounted, but "scratch" must be _required. What if we added _require_test if we're going to write to test, and doing so triggers the check? I'm sure there are other ways around it. Spending tons of time in fsck for a filesystem we didn't touch isn't time well spent, IMHO. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs