From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f169.google.com (mail-pl1-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93A09288D2; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 04:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.169 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740111267; cv=none; b=qELP33FEXL6M8yDq0+XdoQkGFegdEMI30i/vg6N4Ucykx+3POTJNLIKtsaX8hH2+7iwyNrO4w9WcN14VW4JUlZHH0R0xtoW8bQPDtGv0t6D19cighHQpmnjrGn4FO8H1t4bXb8NvmZw2RydNNT99IGWEqyEk9fPTL/dtayubAws= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740111267; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mr129RpKe4qZhUm4zKwY+fdQ+Qj7H1r+aYrC25nFBNA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=NU824jIp1BgrTOuqwPU9G2zl4v3l5laxPs4d8dh6n5NIio/ptdB9M/ImcPfooFtTu5dvtYNbVPJwjXISkT9XXklo2zAxlgXg/+DZTotEyjbofdcNpeXNFJ3PDfYA9EeloIUV2i8IItrhtXbns+y0nnp/fWyPldKEKSQ17lI7T3E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=XArqJzEG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.169 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XArqJzEG" Received: by mail-pl1-f169.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-220d398bea9so24463885ad.3; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:14:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1740111265; x=1740716065; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZHr6xR4ESQRe/w/mY2FxSwMZDKAFIO1DxA/UrWdYVIY=; b=XArqJzEGmouFqP1HMbgfkVlS6FVCPuz2m1LLjDpVEuDoRkSFWNbmCBhoKUumaEL86Z yMOJQ9NrindRB1K26c1Ix8DUy/4DSSck3jJ5oka99rfLSwGV7ehFDCg0tSv0wPiZ//9q JFUA7Py8TLTCts8TXfDo6LCHdri3tD+7rFq0NKBW3idS3ha13JFOJJKFMyDGx8vTW08z Miq8b6OOXRUX5LYM3F0j+Oqen3oaIdHO+IKAgl78tK6JxZn/A8pzELQTxpG3295YeI6n 1Wv+YBBNv/ciX82E8tvGpryS5xXPS/zQIGS5NIfxo074lXN7PHgW4OjBGqUWYANQ2yMC qjbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740111265; x=1740716065; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZHr6xR4ESQRe/w/mY2FxSwMZDKAFIO1DxA/UrWdYVIY=; b=ur/ED2Rg3+v+gXl3NuG8H90JJ0j5MG+MAdlLg9GkDZ/DFHa/mpGeCMCCzGD4YkRMLV MhEUT73qzQVxBa3qqMn1vs2VzAeRe5kvPL0jePSKuZm2dC7ncjECspwoF2frtSTo3gS7 AxKpV10Y750JjzBciEHtmLbYg4DuC1a8ZjOXj83P8fkvA2SIoksmRulUq39SU2d6BnQH pPzTcFMRd0wkDFCS7xXxaAt+b7lmi+yRfwsTLn9UW8asQ8Y+xWj7Y7vr2TF10t/CPdpJ kiU+SYnyTUgfZbDk6ryWK1gcylgRj06lzE8mliUJZ/m8Fre1Dw+/5e91X6lXP9Gwj+GE 8CAw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWBLDac/U+DBfTzT1nnQ9i4aZfOJ/PTrAMuLU7hgqPfHVHP87rJrxozbBApRf8Vj/YjZ2xjvru5pwIbAw==@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCWZeIq9dBGBvlzOHSPDeJzlOf6uIQ2FjHpkTsGB6qVwsWuo/Cg6elsfn69RwZViAfATbceA8BKssJ9a@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCX+3w58KFgyHjL7R3N9LsZJXu98UPryGFEKdpOeCrenPlyLqX7sHaDLzPqBVMpPlufBPuiyO8Pr@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxgN5OX74KnskISaG43+69rkoFb8X7mFokwRMXRoAit08ShvllM H0aTyOZO5f+wplvp1iqawaK6sQGah2RlpP2AnR/iSM3Xp/+yHgT/ X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctPoPDI9Gmn0MCwRCp3ppXOzTJ57FRma9OtHN1GxsZvp2RZXr0aZEOaulzbZDH cE57RnGl9dSTzkXl4qW7AgPL2sIcVhbvrXpcGH5gSDjAHfnAReFWqPe+1evwJz33vly7pLBsxwq WvcVQ8+TIG7hSQ0vwLarujdAU18qR1MmuMArpbw10lu4OA39dPtQdkmmqN/j4axyVRwRYGdK5Ze eVwTFK+MyqrkPMlDNh6jp0ugI647KxzAlZdeei6tMq5hUDNtALLauMudBDue7oRSkGQMlTN1QbG z47Keveefv0GE4S9z2o6Z0abVM6BCVdiXP9C X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGp5DLZjMSc5QicVCq7ZLMPhFC2+soM9LdXSJrfVSXvofOLC04sFme3uQNZgnSdacORfM4A8w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f68c:b0:220:e156:63e0 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-221a0ec9b16mr18160405ad.8.1740111264544; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:14:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.120] ([49.205.33.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fceb04bbccsm258986a91.17.2025.02.20.20.14.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:14:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:44:19 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE Content-Language: en-US To: Zorro Lang Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, ritesh.list@gmail.com, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, zlang@kernel.org References: <3b980d028a8ae1496c13ebe3a6685fbc472c5bc0.1738040386.git.nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com> <20250128180917.GA3561257@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250129160259.GT3557553@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250131162457.GV1611770@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250201063516.gndb7lngpd5afatv@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> <20250210142322.tptpphdntglsz4eq@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> From: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" In-Reply-To: <20250210142322.tptpphdntglsz4eq@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2/10/25 19:53, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 11:32:43PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: >> On 2/1/25 12:05, Zorro Lang wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 08:24:57AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 06:49:50PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: >>>>> On 1/29/25 21:32, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 04:48:10PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/28/25 23:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:00:22AM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote: >>>>>>>>> Bug Description: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _test_mount function is failing with the following error: >>>>>>>>> ./common/rc: line 4716: _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown: command not found >>>>>>>>> check: failed to mount /dev/loop0 on /mnt1/test >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> when the second section in local.config file is xfs and the first section >>>>>>>>> is non-xfs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It can be easily reproduced with the following local.config file >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [s2] >>>>>>>>> export FSTYP=ext4 >>>>>>>>> export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0 >>>>>>>>> export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test >>>>>>>>> export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1 >>>>>>>>> export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [s1] >>>>>>>>> export FSTYP=xfs >>>>>>>>> export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0 >>>>>>>>> export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test >>>>>>>>> export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1 >>>>>>>>> export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ./check selftest/001 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Root cause: >>>>>>>>> When _test_mount() is executed for the second section, the FSTYPE has >>>>>>>>> already changed but the new fs specific common/$FSTYP has not yet >>>>>>>>> been done. Hence _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown() is not found and >>>>>>>>> the test run fails. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fix: >>>>>>>>> Remove the additional _test_mount in check file just before ". commom/rc" >>>>>>>>> since ". commom/rc" is already sourcing fs specific imports and doing a >>>>>>>>> _test_mount. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1a49022fab9b4 ("fstests: always use fail-at-unmount semantics for XFS") >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nirjhar Roy (IBM) >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> check | 12 +++--------- >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/check b/check >>>>>>>>> index 607d2456..5cb4e7eb 100755 >>>>>>>>> --- a/check >>>>>>>>> +++ b/check >>>>>>>>> @@ -784,15 +784,9 @@ function run_section() >>>>>>>>> status=1 >>>>>>>>> exit >>>>>>>>> fi >>>>>>>>> - if ! _test_mount >>>>>>>> Don't we want to _test_mount the newly created filesystem still? But >>>>>>>> perhaps after sourcing common/rc ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --D >>>>>>> common/rc calls init_rc() in the end and init_rc() already does a >>>>>>> _test_mount. _test_mount after sourcing common/rc will fail, won't it? Does >>>>>>> that make sense? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> init_rc() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>     # make some further configuration checks here >>>>>>>     if [ "$TEST_DEV" = ""  ] >>>>>>>     then >>>>>>>         echo "common/rc: Error: \$TEST_DEV is not set" >>>>>>>         exit 1 >>>>>>>     fi >>>>>>> >>>>>>>     # if $TEST_DEV is not mounted, mount it now as XFS >>>>>>>     if [ -z "`_fs_type $TEST_DEV`" ] >>>>>>>     then >>>>>>>         # $TEST_DEV is not mounted >>>>>>>         if ! _test_mount >>>>>>>         then >>>>>>>             echo "common/rc: retrying test device mount with external set" >>>>>>>             [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" != "yes" ] && export USE_EXTERNAL=yes >>>>>>>             if ! _test_mount >>>>>>>             then >>>>>>>                 echo "common/rc: could not mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR" >>>>>>>                 exit 1 >>>>>>>             fi >>>>>>>         fi >>>>>>>     fi >>>>>>> ... >>>>>> ahahahaha yes it does. >>>>>> >>>>>> /commit message reading comprehension fail, sorry about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Though now that you point it out, should check elide the init_rc call >>>>>> about 12 lines down if it re-sourced common/rc ? >>>>> Yes, it should. init_rc() is getting called twice when common/rc is getting >>>>> re-sourced. Maybe I can do like >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> if $RECREATE_TEST_DEV || [ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]; then >>>>> >>>>>     <...> >>>>> >>>>>     . common/rc # changes in this patch >>>>> >>>>>     <...> >>>>> >>>>> elif [ "$OLD_TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" != "$TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" ]; then >>>>> >>>>>     ... >>>>> >>>>>     init_rc() # explicitly adding an init_rc() for this condition >>>>> >>>>> else >>>>> >>>>>     init_rc() # # explicitly adding an init_rc() for all other conditions. >>>>> This will prevent init_rc() from getting called twice during re-sourcing >>>>> common/rc >>>>> >>>>> fi >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> Sounds fine as a mechanical change, but I wonder, should calling init_rc >>>> be explicit? There are not so many places that source common/rc: >>>> >>>> $ git grep 'common/rc' >>>> check:362:if ! . ./common/rc; then >>>> check:836: . common/rc >>>> common/preamble:52: . ./common/rc >>>> soak:7:. ./common/rc >>>> tests/generic/749:18:. ./common/rc >>>> >>>> (I filtered out the non-executable matches) >>>> >>>> I think the call in generic/749 is unnecessary and I don't know what >>>> soak does. But that means that one could insert an explicit call to >>>> init_rc at line 366 and 837 in check and at line 53 in common/preamble, >>>> and we can clean up one more of those places where sourcing a common/ >>>> file actually /does/ something quietly under the covers. >>>> >>>> (Unless the maintainer is ok with the status quo...?) >>> I think people just hope to import the helpers in common/rc mostly, don't >>> want to run init_rc again. Maybe we can make sure the init_rc is only run >>> once each time? >>> >>> E.g. >>> >>> if [ _INIT_RC != "done" ];then >>> init_rc >>> _INIT_RC="done" >>> fi >>> >>> Or any better idea. >> Yes, this idea looks good too. However, after thinking a bit more, I like >> Darrick's idea to remove the call to init_rc from common/rc and explicitly >> calling them explicitly whenever necessary makes more sense. This also makes >> the interface/reason to source common/rc more meaningful, and also not >> making common/rc do something via init_rc silently. What do you think? > Sorry I'm on a travel, reply you late. I don't like to run codes in include > files either :) If we remove the init_rc calling from common/rc we might > need to do 2 things: > 1) xfstests/check needs to run init_rc, calls it in check properly. > 2) Now each sub-cases run init_rc when they import common/rc, I think > we can call init_rc in common/preamble:_begin_fstest(). Sorry for my delayed reply, I got caught up with some other work items. Thank you for your above suggestions. Let me go through them, look for some edge cases and I can come up with a patch after some proper testing. Regards, --NR > > If I miss other things, please feel free to remind me:) > > Thanks, > Zorro > >> --NR >> >>> Thanks, >>> Zorro >>> >>>> --D >>>> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" >>>>>> >>>>>> --D >>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --NR >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - then >>>>>>>>> - echo "check: failed to mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR" >>>>>>>>> - status=1 >>>>>>>>> - exit >>>>>>>>> - fi >>>>>>>>> - # TEST_DEV has been recreated, previous FSTYP derived from >>>>>>>>> - # TEST_DEV could be changed, source common/rc again with >>>>>>>>> - # correct FSTYP to get FSTYP specific configs, e.g. common/xfs >>>>>>>>> + # Previous FSTYP derived from TEST_DEV could be changed, source >>>>>>>>> + # common/rc again with correct FSTYP to get FSTYP specific configs, >>>>>>>>> + # e.g. common/xfs >>>>>>>>> . common/rc >>>>>>>>> _prepare_test_list >>>>>>>>> elif [ "$OLD_TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" != "$TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" ]; then >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 2.34.1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Nirjhar Roy >>>>>>> Linux Kernel Developer >>>>>>> IBM, Bangalore >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Nirjhar Roy >>>>> Linux Kernel Developer >>>>> IBM, Bangalore >>>>> >>>>> >> -- >> Nirjhar Roy >> Linux Kernel Developer >> IBM, Bangalore >> -- Nirjhar Roy Linux Kernel Developer IBM, Bangalore