On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:08:27AM -0400, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:34:00AM -0400, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > The format of glusterfs' TEST_DEV or SCRATCH_DEV is XXX:XXX or
>> >> > XXX:/XXX, but xfstests can't accept the latter now. So change
>> >>
>> >> Why can't xfstest accept the latter?
>> >
>> > Because I use "\w:\w" in commit "4cbc0a0 fstests: add GlusterFS support".
>> > More details please see below.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > the regular expression from "\w:\w" to ":/?", to accept more
>> >> > glusterfs device format.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > According to the feedback from glusterfs developer:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Yes, it would be good to have an optional "/" after the ":". It is not
>> >> > required, but would probably help when someone runs the tests with the
>> >> > "hostname:/volume" device format."
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The developer also said
>> >> "We mostly use the format of 192.168.1.1:/testvol, matching the way NFS"
>> >> If we can enforce the more common format which xfstest already expects
>> >> for nfs*|ceph)
>> >> Why would we want to support another optional format and have a special
>> >> test case for it?
>> >
>> > Niels is the developer of glusterfs' NFS module (sorry, I forgot its project
>> > name), he test it likes test NFS:
>> > mount -t nfs 192.168.1.1:/XXXX /mnt
>> >
>> > So he only can use XXXX:/XXX format, because xfstests limit that format
>> > to mount NFS.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Maybe there's a slash before the gluster volume name. This patch
>> >> > try to support this format.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Zorro
>> >> >
>> >> > common/rc | 4 ++--
>> >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
>> >> > index edfba5d..e1ab2c6 100644
>> >> > --- a/common/rc
>> >> > +++ b/common/rc
>> >> > @@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@ _require_scratch_nocheck()
>> >> > {
>> >> > case "$FSTYP" in
>> >> > glusterfs)
>> >> > - echo $SCRATCH_DEV | grep -q "\w:\w" > /dev/null 2>&1
>> >> > + echo $SCRATCH_DEV | egrep -q ":/?" > /dev/null 2>&1
>> >
>> > As I know, mount a glusrerfs always do like this:
>> > mount -t glusterfs 192.169.1.1:testvol /mnt
>> > or
>> > mount -t glusterfs 192.169.1.1:/testvol /mnt
>> >
>> > So glusterfs can use XXXX:XXX or XXXX:/XXX format, but if mount a nfs,
>> > we only can use XXXX:/XXX format.
>> >
>> > So that's why NFS use `grep -q ":/"`, but glusterfs use `egrep -q ":/?"`
>> >
>>
>> I understand.
>> What I am saying is that if glusterfs *can* use XXXX:/XXX
>> and a file system tester will dedicate a specific mount for xfstests,
>> so tester can use the NFS format for that mount and we can require that.
>>
>> Is that really a big deal for the tester?
>>
>> If we do that we will have less special cases for format of *_DEV
>> and I think that is a gain.
>
> Hah, I already added many things for glusterfs in commit "4cbc0a0
> fstests: add GlusterFS support", so I think it doesn't matter to
> accept both formats for glusterfs too :)
>
Sure. fine by me. Was just a suggestion.
--
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
