From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751736Ab0ACD2O (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:28:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751311Ab0ACD2N (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:28:13 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:33328 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106Ab0ACD2M (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:28:12 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:27:58 -0500 From: tytso@mit.edu To: Christian Kujau Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , LKML , Alexander Beregalov , Chris Mason , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: reiserfs broken in 2.6.32 was Re: [GIT PULL] reiserfs fixes Message-ID: <20100103032758.GP828@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: tytso@mit.edu, Christian Kujau , Frederic Weisbecker , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , LKML , Alexander Beregalov , Chris Mason , Ingo Molnar References: <20100102163644.GA5076@nowhere> <20100102174311.GA30016@basil.fritz.box> <20100102190213.GC5076@nowhere> <20100102192337.GB30016@basil.fritz.box> <20100102201138.GF5076@nowhere> <20100102210101.GN828@thunk.org> <20100102210653.GH5076@nowhere> <20100102233603.GO828@thunk.org> <20100103015208.GJ5076@nowhere> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 06:05:13PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 at 02:52, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > [: 53: ==: unexpected operator > > common.rc: Error: $TEST_DEV (/dev/sda3) is not a MOUNTED xfs filesystem > > Yeah, I'm playing around with xfstests as well, but apparently they're > assuming !/bin/sh will be run under /bin/bash, which is not always the > case. A short fix is to link /bin/sh to /bin/bash, but perhaps some of the > tests can be tweaked to run under /bin/sh as well. > > > I'm not sure how I can run these tests on a non-xfs partitions. > > I must be missing something. > > I haven't found an easy way to do this yet without rewriting a few > routines (mkfs, mount, etc...). As Ted is already using xfstests for > btrfs, ext4, maybe he wants to share his magic? :-) I'm using it for ext4. It looks like someone has already tried using the xfstests with reiserfs; take a look at common.rc; you'll see case statements for xfs, udf, nfs, ext2/3/4, reiserfs, and gfs2. Someone who wants to use xfstests for some other file system may need to further edit common.rc. I thought the btrfs folks were using it as well, but at least the kernel.org git tree for xfstests doesn't seem to show any btrfs references in common.rc, so perhaps I'm wrong about btrfs developers using xfstests (or they haven't sent their patches back upstream). I'm not sure how well tested the reiserfs support is, so you may need to edit common.rc as necessary. In any case, the README file has pretty much what you need. I personally run my test kernels using KVM, and I have a run-test script which invokes check as follows: #!/bin/sh export TEST_DEV=/dev/sdb export TEST_DIR=/test export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdc1 export SCRATCH_MNT=/scratch export EXT_MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o block_validity" exec ./check -ext4 $* /dev/sdb is an ext4-formated filesystem, which you're supposed to not reformat from run to run, so that some testing can be done with an "aged" file system. The scratch filesystem will be reformatted for various tests, so you shouldn't keep anything valueable on it. I also have a 1k block file system on /dev/sdd, so I invoke check as follows to check to make sure things work when blocksize != pagesize: #!/bin/sh export TEST_DEV=/dev/sdd export TEST_DIR=/test-1k export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdc1 export SCRATCH_MNT=/scratch export MKFS_OPTIONS="-b 1024" exec ./check -ext4 $* As far as the inconsistency between TEST_DIR versus SCRATCH_MNT --- all I can say is, the XFS engineers who threw together the xfstests scripts may have been very good file system engineers, but they obviously weren't very well used as UI/User Experience designers. :-) (The documentation isn't all that great either, but patches sent to xfs@oss.sgi.com do tend to be accepted and merged into the kernel.org tree if they are clean.) Hope this helps, - Ted