From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanislav Kholmanskikh Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:05:41 +0300 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs In-Reply-To: <977252429.1084123.1464157861719.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <20160524074936.11253-1-bxue@redhat.com> <882847003.325886.1464098472012.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20160524152621.GB12920@rei.suse.cz> <977252429.1084123.1464157861719.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Message-ID: <57454EC5.7050700@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On 05/25/2016 09:31 AM, Jan Stancek wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Cyril Hrubis" >> To: "Jan Stancek" >> Cc: "Boyang Xue" , "stanislav kholmanskikh" , ltp@lists.linux.it >> Sent: Tuesday, 24 May, 2016 5:26:22 PM >> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs >> >> Hi! >>> Alternative would be to zero-erase first blocks of LTP_BIG_DEV >>> in runltp, but I'm not sure we want to assume that all tests >>> are going to write over it. >>> >>> I found only 3 tests using LTP_BIG_DEV, this is the only >>> one that is using xfs/btrfs, the other two are ext3/4. >> >> Or we can move the dd that erases first blocks from tst_acquire_device() >> to tst_mkfs(). > > I went to re-read why we are avoiding -f, and this does sound better > than adding -f back. If we move 'dd' to tst_mkfs(), then tst_acquire_device will return "uncleared" devices, and mkfs_ext* test cases from runtest/commands will start failing in our environment, i.e. we revert f79021c5d168256. I'd ack the patch, since it affects only one test case. > > Regards, > Jan > >> >> Or we can create an API function to get the path to big device and erase >> it there... >> >> -- >> Cyril Hrubis >> chrubis@suse.cz >>