On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 09:12:03PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:58 PM Ernesto A. Fernández > <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 08:57:58AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:44 AM Ernesto A. Fernández > > > <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Running tests on hfsplus requires patched versions of the mkfs and fsck > > > > tools [1] that support filesystems smaller than the device. > > > > > > That's not accurate, is it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the patched > > > tools are required to run the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests? > > > > I set this up to call _fatal early if the tools are not the patched > > versions. > > > > Using -X on mkfs.hfsplus forces the size to be a whole number of blocks, > > and using -X on fsck makes it work under that assumption. This is briefly > > explained in the patched man page for the tools. > > > > It's a workaround needed because hfsplus only stores the number of > > allocation blocks in the volume header. If the device size is not a > > multiple of the block size, the backup header will be past the end, and > > fsck will take that as corruption. > > > > Of course I could let the patched fsck use the -X flag by default. But > > that could be dangerous if somebody accidentally uses it to check an > > important filesystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > common/config | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > common/rc | 15 ++++++++++++++- > > > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/common/config b/common/config > > > > index 1ba8d96c..315f8b1e 100644 > > > > --- a/common/config > > > > +++ b/common/config > > > > @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ case "$HOSTOS" in > > > > export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false" > > > > export MKFS_OVERLAY_PROG="false" > > > > export MKFS_REISER4_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.reiser4) > > > > + export MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.hfsplus) > > > > export E2FSCK_PROG=$(type -P e2fsck) > > > > export TUNE2FS_PROG=$(type -P tune2fs) > > > > export FSCK_OVERLAY_PROG=$(type -P fsck.overlay) > > > > @@ -313,6 +314,9 @@ _mount_opts() > > > > ubifs) > > > > export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$UBIFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > > > > + ;; > > > > *) > > > > ;; > > > > esac > > > > @@ -380,6 +384,9 @@ _mkfs_opts() > > > > f2fs) > > > > export MKFS_OPTIONS="$F2FS_MKFS_OPTIONS" > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MKFS_OPTIONS > > > > + ;; > > > > *) > > > > ;; > > > > esac > > > > @@ -397,6 +404,9 @@ _fsck_opts() > > > > f2fs) > > > > export FSCK_OPTIONS="" > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + export FSCK_OPTIONS="-nX" > > > > + ;; > > > > *) > > > > export FSCK_OPTIONS="-n" > > > > ;; > > > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > > > index d5bb1fee..a843e9f6 100644 > > > > --- a/common/rc > > > > +++ b/common/rc > > > > @@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ case "$FSTYP" in > > > > ubifs) > > > > [ "$UBIUPDATEVOL_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "ubiupdatevol not found" > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + [ "$MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.hfsplus not found" > > > > + mkfs.hfsplus -X |& grep "invalid" && > > > > + _fatal "A patched version of mkfs.hfsplus is required:" \ > > > > + "https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git"; > > > > > > Why fatal and not just notrun the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests if no -X support? > > > Must all tests run with mkfs -X and fsck -X?? > > > > I always use -X on mkfs so the tests will complain if the size of the > > device is not a whole number of blocks. Otherwise the tests would later > > fail on fsck. > > > > Maybe I should check for -X support when setting the FSCK_OPTIONS, and in > > _scratch_mkfs()? Then _fatal would not be necessary. > > I don't mind myself. If nobody has objections to support hfsplus only with > patched tools that is a valid option. > > > > > > > > > > + ;; > > > > esac > > > > > > > > if [ ! -z "$REPORT_LIST" ]; then > > > > @@ -746,6 +752,10 @@ _scratch_mkfs() > > > > mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --" > > > > mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^mkfs\.ocfs2" > > > > ;; > > > > + hfsplus) > > > > + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP -- -X" > > > > > > -X here seems like a typo? > > > > This is so the tests will complain if the device size is not a multiple > > of the block size. I think I explained it in the patched man page for > > mkfs.hfsplus, but it may be better to put a comment here. > > > > Comment is a good idea, but -X after -- ? shouldn't all options > come before --? I think the generic mkfs program passes everything after -- to mkfs.fstype. I was following what ext2 does above. > > Thanks, > Amir.
