On 10/31/2017 01:34 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:25:51PM +0200, Omer Zilberberg wrote: >> >> On 10/31/2017 06:37 AM, Eryu Guan wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:08:31AM +0200, Omer Zilberberg wrote: >>>>> These tests locally change the TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS/MOUNT_OPTIONS >>>>> environment variables, and run _test_cycle_mount. As a result, following >>>>> tests using the TEST mount point may start with different mount options, >>>>> depending on run order. >>>> I don't think that's the case. The change of the environment >>>> variable should only affect the current test process and it's >>>> children. When the test exits, we go back to the environment of the >>>> check process, where the TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS environment variable is >>>> still correctly set, and all future tests inherit from that. i.e.: >>>> >>>> $ export FOO=foo >>>> $ echo $FOO >>>> foo >>>> $ bash >>>> $ echo $FOO >>>> foo >>>> $ export FOO=bar >>>> $ echo $FOO >>>> bar >>>> $ exit >>>> $ echo $FOO >>>> foo >>>> $ >>>> >>>> And after each test, check runs _check_filesystems(), which cycles >>>> the test mount, so for each new test process that is run they should >>>> already start in the correct state... >>> I agreed, the changing of variables in a sub-shell won't affect the >>> parent's copy, and check will restore the mounts with the untouched >>> options. >>> >>> But the problem is that _check_test_fs() will cycle mount TEST_DEV with >>> MOUNT_OPTIONS not TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS, so if you have different mount >>> options set for TEST_DEV and SCRATCH_DEV, you'll see mount options >>> changed for TEST_DEV. e.g. >>> >>> MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax" TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="" ./check generic/413 generic/445 >>> generic/445 mount TEST_DEV with "-o dax" too >>> >>> MOUNT_OPTIONS="" TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o dax" ./check generic/413 generic/445 >>> generic/445 mount TEST_DEV without "-o dax" >>> >>> MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax" TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o dax" ./check generic/413 generic/445 >>> both tests and both devices mount with "-o dax" >>> >>> That's been discussed in this thread: >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9742039/ >>> >>> Omer, can you please confirm if you're hitting this issue? >> I'm not 100% that's the case, so I better describe my settings more clearly: >> I have a debug mount option on my system to recover the FS from a backup. >> When that flag is set, umount writes everything to the backup. >> Mount restores from it, overwriting everything. > If you're testing with setting your debug mount option to both > TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS and MOUNT_OPTIONS, and you still see the failure you > were seeing, then that's a different problem. Yeah, that's what I'm doing, setting both with that flag. > >> As long as generic/413 is not involved, everything works well. >> All _test_cycle_mount() calls first back everything up on umount, >> then restore upon mount. So I get the same FS contents. >> >> But, consider generic/118 running after generic/413: >> - generic/413 finishes with a mount point with no mount options >> - generic/118 begins with restored TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS, as you've pointed out. >> - some writes are performed to the FS >> - next _test_cycle_mount: >> calls umount w/o backing up (debug flag previously unset by generic/413). > Does this clear the backup too? If so, I suspect TEST_DEV got cleared on > first mount with the debug option in generic/118, because the backup has > been cleared in the _test_cycle_mount call in generic/413. Yeah the backup is cleared, which is normal behavior when the debug flag is off. And exactly, it's generic/413 clearing the flag from the mount point, that's caused this. > >> calls mount WITH the debug flag, and recovers from an empty backup, >> deleting the earlier writes. >> - subsequent md5sum fails on "No such file or directory", as FS is now empty. >> >>> I think fixing _check_<fs>_filesystem() is the correct way. And I guess >>> we can refactor out a common function and call it in >>> _check_[xfs|btrfs|generic]_filesystem, pass the correct mount options >>> based on what device we're working on. >> If indeed we're talking about the same problem, >> please let me know if you'd like me to prepare a different patch. > Sure, really appreciated if you can prepare a different patch, even if > it's not the same problem :) Ok. But are we in agreement that there are 2 different issues here? If so, please let me know what you think of this patch, which does resolve that issue I had originally (at least locally for me). And I'll explore the issue with check_test_fs and the different mount options, based on what you've both written here and the thread you've pointed to. I'll send another patch to address that later. > > Thanks, > Eryu -- 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
