On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:29 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I only test xfs+overlay. And Darrick also tests this regularly for xfs regression test, so it must be a different way in which we invoke the test. Thanks, Amir.
