----- 原始邮件 ----- > 发件人: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > 收件人: "Zirong Lang" <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 抄送: "Eryu Guan" <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>, fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx, cem@xxxxxxxxxx > 发送时间: 星期三, 2016年 6 月 22日 上午 11:04:55 > 主题: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] xfs/006: new case to test xfs fail_at_unmount error handling > > On 6/21/16 8:42 PM, Zirong Lang wrote: > > Hi Dave > > > > ----- 原始邮件 ----- > >> 发件人: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> 收件人: "Eryu Guan" <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> 抄送: "Zorro Lang" <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>, fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > >> sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx, cem@xxxxxxxxxx > >> 发送时间: 星期三, 2016年 6 月 22日 上午 8:00:40 > >> 主题: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] xfs/006: new case to test xfs fail_at_unmount error > >> handling > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:08:18PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:24:33PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > >>>> +# real QA test starts here > >>>> +_supported_fs xfs > >>>> +_supported_os Linux > >>>> +_require_dm_target error > >>>> +_require_scratch > >>>> + > >>>> +_scratch_mkfs > $seqres.full 2>&1 > >>>> +_require_fs_sysfs $SCRATCH_DEV error/fail_at_unmount > >>> > >>> Usually we call _require_xxx before mkfs and do the real test, a comment > >>> to explain why we need to mkfs first would be good. > >> > >> Ok, so why do we need to test the scratch device for this > >> sysfs file check? We've already got the test device mounted, and > >> filesystems tend to present identical sysfs control files for all > >> mounted filesystems. > >> > >> i.e. this _require_fs_sysfs() function could just drop the device > >> and check the test device for whether the sysfs entry exists. If it > >> doesn't, then the scratch device isn't going to have it, either. > > > > Hmm... at first I thought about if I should use TEST_DEV to do > > _require_fs_sysfs > > checking. But I'm not sure if different devices maybe bring different sysfs > > attributes in, if someone make a special device in one case? So I give one > > more > > argument about device name. > > Sorry, I was kind of thinking this as well on my first review, but I let it > pass. > > I would say that for now, let's just use TEST_DEV. There is no reason to > code > around "what-if" scenarios. If a filesystem ends up needing a special mkfs > or mount option to expose a sysfs tunable in the future, we can add a device > name > at that point. Until then, I don't think there is any reason, and the "mkfs > first, > then require" is definitely a little bit out of the ordinary. Sorry, I should follow your first review suggestion. I will change to use TEST_DEV:) Thanks, -Zorro > > -Eric > -- 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
