Re: [PATCH 08/23] common: fix pkill by running test program in a separate session

Darrick J. Wong
2025-01-22T07:05:21Z

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 05:08:17PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 08:24:00PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 02:28:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 03:27:15PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > c) Putting test subprocesses in a systemd sub-scope and telling systemd
> > > > to kill the sub-scope could work because ./check can already use it to
> > > > ensure that all child processes of a test are killed. However, this is
> > > > an *optional* feature, which means that we'd have to require systemd.
> > >
> > > ... requiring systemd was somewhat of a show-stopper for testing
> > > older distros.
> >
> > Isn't RHEL7 the oldest one at this point? And it does systemd. At this
> > point the only reason I didn't go full systemd is out of consideration
> > for Devuan, since they probably need QA.
>
> I have no idea what is out there in distro land vs what fstests
> "supports". All I know is that there are distros out there that
> don't use systemd.
>
> It feels like poor form to prevent generic filesystem QA
> infrastructure from running on those distros by making an avoidable
> choice to tie the infrastructure exclusively to systemd-based
> functionality....

Agreed, though at some point after these bugfixes are merged I'll see if
I can build on the existing "if you have systemd then ___ else here's
your shabby opencoded version" logic in fstests to isolate the ./checks
from each other a little better. It'd be kinda nice if we could
actually just put them in something resembling a modernish container,
albeit with the same underlying fs.

<shrug> Anyone else interested in that?

--D

> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
>