On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 09:11:34PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:56 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > When tests overlayfs, sometimes we need the underlying fs specific > > helpers, e.g. common/rc has: > > _filesystem_timestamp_range $OVL_BASE_TEST_DEV $OVL_BASE_FSTYP > > > > So when we source common/overlay, better to source then OVL_BASE_FSTYP > > too. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > The generic/402 always fails on overlayfs as: > > > > QA output created by 402 > > ./common/rc: line 2441: _xfs_timestamp_range: command not found > > ./common/rc: line 2403: [: syntax error: '-1' unexpected > > ./common/rc: line 2408: [: -le: unary operator expected > > ./common/rc: line 2441: _xfs_timestamp_range: command not found > > 0;0 != 1;1 > > 0;0 != 1;1 > > Silence is golden > > > > Due to if FSTYP is overlay, we only source common/overlay file. But we > > still need the helpers of the underlying filesystem. So I think we need > > to source the common/$OVL_BASE_FSTYP in common/overlay. What do you think? > > That makes sense. I haven't given it enough test, hope it won't break something:) > I don't know why I have never hit this. > Maybe because I am not running with multi section config or > because I am runing with kvm-xfstests runner. Do you test overlay with XFS? For now, I think only xfs+overlay can reproduce this failure. Thanks, Zorro > > Thanks, > Amir. >
