Re: [PATCH] common/rc: add overlay support to _require_metadata_journaling

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 在 2018年1月4日,下午2:48,Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> 写道:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:03 AM, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> metadata journaling check needs base filesystem configureations
>>> and ./check -overlay saves those configurations to OVL_BASE_*,
>>> so restore/override the configuratons before/after the check.
>>>
>>
>> 1. Presumably, you are making this change because you ran into a problem
>> with some setup? Please you specify that motivation in commit message.
>
> Sorry for delaying long time, actually this is a follow-up patch of shutdown
> support for overlay, based on our previous discussion and mainly for avoiding
> Eryu’s concern as below.
>
> ===
> I think you're right, I was looking at other shutdown tests for too long
> and thought this one needed the jounal check too, sorry about that!
>
> But as Amir suggested, other shutdown tests need overlay support in
> _require_metadata_journaling, but I think that can be fixed in a
> follow-up patch, as using ext2 or no-journal mode ext4 as the backing
> filesystems of overlay is not a common setup, the possiblity of someone
> hitting false positive is relative low.
> ===
>
>> 2. Can you please give a brief summary of the type of generic tests
>> that are going
>> to "notrun" because of this change without specifying base FSTYP.
>> I suppose it will be good for those tests not to run, just want to get the idea,
>> because I have a feeling that _require_metadata_journaling is used for
>> various different reasons.
>
> Currently it does not check for overlay in _require_metadata_journaling,
> so even if base fs without journal can successfully pass this check, right?
>
> With this change, if we do not specify base FSTYP then FSTYP and OVL_BASE_FSTYP
> are all “overlay”, in this situation I think it’s better to stop test and give a
> proper warning to tester because we could not decide what to do.
>
>
>> 3. Please specify with which base fs you tested and preferably, run the
>> test with the 3 major fs as base fs. Bonus points for running the test with
>> multi section config file with several base fs ;-)
>
> I basically tested xfs,ext2,ext4(with journal/no-journal mode) but in one section,
> I’ll test multi section config later if this change is useful.
>
>

Okay, so IIUC, there is a commit that made a bunch of shutdown tests
to work with -overlay run and this commit introduced a bug with the
uncommon setup of overay over ext2/ext4-noload.

That should be the gist of your commit message and the commit
id and title should be part of that message.

Thanks,
Amir.
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux