On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 03:16:39PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:45:46AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 09:21:03AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 02:49:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 11:38:27PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > > There was a bug, xfs_info fails on a mounted block device: > > > > > > > > > > # xfs_info /dev/mapper/testdev > > > > > xfs_info: /dev/mapper/testdev contains a mounted filesystem > > > > > > > > > > fatal error -- couldn't initialize XFS library > > > > > > > > > > xfsprogs has fixed it by: > > > > > > > > > > bbb43745 xfs_info: use findmnt to handle mounted block devices > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Aha! I remembered something -- xfs/449 already checks for consistency > > > > in the various xfs geometry reports that each command provides, so why > > > > not just add the $XFS_INFO_PROG $SCRATCH_DEV case at the end? > > Hmm... But I hope the case can keep running xfs_info test even there're not > xfs_spaceman -c "info" or xfs_db -c "info", just skip these two steps. Due > to RHEL-7 has old xfsprogs, we'd like to cover bug on RHEL-7. > > What do you think? If there isn't an xfs_db -c info command then xfs_info <blockev> won't work because that's what it does internally. Sooo unless you're backporting the new xfs_db info command to rhel7 xfsprogs as well as the new xfs_info wrapper, the test ought to just _notrun on rhel7. --D > > > > > > Wow, there're so many cases, can't sure what we've covered now:) > > > > > > Sure, I can do this change on xfs/449, if Eryu thinks it's fine to increase > > > the test coverage of a known case. > > > > Given that we're having more and more tests and the test time grows > > quickly, I'm fine now with adding such small & similar test to existing > > test case to reuse the test setups, especially when XFS maintainer > > agrees to do so :) > > > > Thanks, > > Eryu
