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

[Stanislav Kholmanskikh <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>]

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
>