On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:07:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > No, it's not really the options that are the problem here. The > problem is -o remount vs unmount/mount and what the test is actually > expecting. > > I'd say "_scratch_remount" should do "-o remount" unconditionally > (least surprise) and the current _scratch_remount should be changed > to something like _scratch_cycle_mount(). That way both can take > options, but it's clear they do different things. tmpfs can simply > implement them the same way. Well, I can do that, but it's going to be a huge patch --- the vast majority of the calls to _scratch_remount in the tree (over 100) would have to be changed to _scratch_cycle_mount, because they are just doing a _scratch_umount / _scratch_mount without taking any arguments to change the mount option. It is this patch that adds the calls that is using -o remount to change mount options for generic/003 and generic/306 and tmpfs. This is why I suggested adding _scratch_change_mount_opts because it changes the smallest number of things, and keeps _scratch_mount to have the same semantic value. But if you want me to sweep through the entire tree changing _scratch_remount to _scratch_cycle_mount, I suppose I can do that. It's not going to be a small patch, though...... - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
