On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 4:53 AM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 10:25:00PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 02:59:42PM +0200, David Disseldorp wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:48:33 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > If you ctrl-c generic/019, it leaves fsstress processes running.
> > > > Kill them in the cleanup function so that they don't have to be
> > > > manually killed after interrupting the test.
> > > >
> > > > While touching the _cleanup() function, make it do everything that
> > > > the generic _cleanup function it overrides does and fix the
> > > > indenting.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > tests/generic/019 | 6 ++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/019 b/tests/generic/019
> > > > index db56dac1..cda107f4 100755
> > > > --- a/tests/generic/019
> > > > +++ b/tests/generic/019
> > > > @@ -53,8 +53,10 @@ stop_fail_scratch_dev()
> > > > # Override the default cleanup function.
> > > > _cleanup()
> > > > {
> > > > - disallow_fail_make_request
> > > > - rm -f $tmp.*
> > > > + kill $fs_pid $fio_pid &> /dev/null
> > > > + disallow_fail_make_request
> > > > + cd /
> > > > + rm -r -f $tmp.*
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > RUN_TIME=$((20+10*$TIME_FACTOR))
> > >
> > > Might be worth unset'ing the "fs_pid" and "fio_pid" variables after the
> > > wait, but should be fine as-is:
> >
> > I agree. Better to avoid killing other system processes. Or how about this place
> > does (avoid killing system useful processes):
> > $KILLALL_PROG -q $FSSTRESS_PROG
> > $KILLALL_PROG -q $FIO_PROG
> >
> > Another picky question is, do we need to use a while loop checking, until the
> > processes really get killed? :)
>
> Do we really need to paint the bikeshed over how best to kill a
> process? I don't have time to do that, this is just a drive-by fix
> that works for me....
>
This is not a kind response to reviewers.
Does a "drive-by fix" get exempt from the review process?
The review comments are legit even if they could be dismissed
on technical grounds, because the risk of pid wraparound is quite low.
I don't think this is about "bikeshed over how best to kill a process"
I think this is about how to have better test cleanup practices.
It would have been nice to have better isolation by having fstests
run a test without a control group and cleanup the control group
processes after the test if someone wants to take on this task.
I personally prefer the pattern of dedicated cleanup trap for aborting the test
like generic/251 that leaves the generic _cleanup on EXIT instead of
duplicating _cleanup (which generic/251 also duplicate incorrectly),
but no strong feeling about that, so as a "drive-by fix" you may add:
Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Amir.
