[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Boyang Xue]

Add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs to aid the failure in creating
filesystem due to commit a7f854472ebc ("tst_mkfs: drop -f from mkfs").

Signed-off-by: Boyang Xue <bxue@redhat.com>
---
 testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh b/testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh
index dfe6f7e..181ae9e 100755
--- a/testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh
+++ b/testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh
@@ -198,6 +198,10 @@ for fstype in $FSTYPES; do
 		opts="-f --journal-size 513 -q"
 	elif echo "$fstype" | grep -q "ext"; then
 		opts="-F"
+	elif [ "$fstype" = "xfs" ]; then
+		opts="-f"
+	elif [ "$fstype" = "btrfs" ]; then
+		opts="-f"
 	fi
 
 	if [ "$fstype" != "ramfs" ]; then
-- 
2.8.3

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Jan Stancek]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Boyang Xue" <bxue@redhat.com>
> To: ltp@lists.linux.it
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 May, 2016 9:49:36 AM
> Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and	btrfs
> 
> Add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs to aid the failure in creating
> filesystem due to commit a7f854472ebc ("tst_mkfs: drop -f from mkfs").
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boyang Xue <bxue@redhat.com>

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.

So, this is fine by me, ACK.
@Stanislav: Any thoughts?

Regards,
Jan

> ---
>  testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh
> b/testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh
> index dfe6f7e..181ae9e 100755
> --- a/testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/fs/fs_readonly/test_robind.sh
> @@ -198,6 +198,10 @@ for fstype in $FSTYPES; do
>  		opts="-f --journal-size 513 -q"
>  	elif echo "$fstype" | grep -q "ext"; then
>  		opts="-F"
> +	elif [ "$fstype" = "xfs" ]; then
> +		opts="-f"
> +	elif [ "$fstype" = "btrfs" ]; then
> +		opts="-f"
>  	fi
>  
>  	if [ "$fstype" != "ramfs" ]; then
> --
> 2.8.3
> 
> 
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
> 

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Cyril Hrubis]

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().

Or we can create an API function to get the path to big device and erase
it there...

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Jan Stancek]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Boyang Xue" <bxue@redhat.com>, "stanislav kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>, 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.

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
> 

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Stanislav Kholmanskikh]

On 05/25/2016 09:31 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
>> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Boyang Xue" <bxue@redhat.com>, "stanislav kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>, 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
>>

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> >> 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.

Well the mkfs testcase is special in a sense that it calls the mkfs
directly. So we may as well move the dd to tst_mfks() and do separate dd
in the mkfs testcase.

But doing 'git grep mkfs' reveals that we have more tests that call mkfs
directly and may start to fail in this case. :(

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Eryu Guan]

Hi,

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:05:41AM +0300, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/25/2016 09:31 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> >>To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> >>Cc: "Boyang Xue" <bxue@redhat.com>, "stanislav kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>, 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.

Any decision made on this patch?

I agreed with acking this patch, it's a targeted fix and only only
affects robind tests and is the easiest way to fix the failure at this
moment :)

Thanks,
Eryu

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Stanislav Kholmanskikh]

Hi

On 06/17/2016 07:28 AM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:05:41AM +0300, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/25/2016 09:31 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
>>>> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: "Boyang Xue" <bxue@redhat.com>, "stanislav kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>, 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.
>
> Any decision made on this patch?
>
> I agreed with acking this patch, it's a targeted fix and only only
> affects robind tests and is the easiest way to fix the failure at this
> moment :)

Sorry for my late response.

I pushed the patch.

>
> Thanks,
> Eryu
>

[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Eryu Guan]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 01:51:07PM +0300, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote:
> Hi
> 
[snip]
> >>
> >>I'd ack the patch, since it affects only one test case.
> >
> >Any decision made on this patch?
> >
> >I agreed with acking this patch, it's a targeted fix and only only
> >affects robind tests and is the easiest way to fix the failure at this
> >moment :)
> 
> Sorry for my late response.
> 
> I pushed the patch.

Thanks!

Eryu