Re: Submitting patches to xfstests based on OSDI '18 paper (CrashMonkey)

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



On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:49 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Wait, why _scratch_shutdown and not using dm_flakey?
> Fewer filesystems support _scratch_shutdown and _scratch_shutdown
> could be buggy and not simulate crash accurately.

Thanks for this note. I was looking at previous xfstest tests
(something not very old - generic/468 for eg), and it was using
scratch_shutdown. Hence I used that as an example. I'll use
flakey_drop_and_remount while writing up future patches.

Doesn't this mean the current tests in xfstest suite might miss bugs
in current/future kernel versions, because some file systems don't
support it? There are many crash-consistency tests in xfstest suite
that still use _scratch_shutdown. In fact generic/468 is one of the
test cases that could not run on btrfs because it does not support
_shutdown. But then this is the exact test case required to reveal a
bug in btrfs - where you lose allocated blocks beyond the eof on
fallocate. Just wanted to bring this up, in case you did not notice it
:)

Thanks,
Jayashree



[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