On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:19:58PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:42:42PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:32:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > While trying to do > > > > > > ./check -s <some section> > > > > > > I was failing because I had a section defined higher than <some section> > > > that had TEST_DEV=/some/nonexistent/device, since I was using the other > > > section to test an experimental drive. This appears to be because we > > > run through all of the sections, and when getting the section config we > > > check to see if it's valid, and in this case the section wasn't valid. > > > > > > The section I was actually trying to use was valid however. Fix check > > > to see if the section we're trying to run is in our list of sections to > > > run first, and then if it is get the config at that point. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > May you provide any specific config examples to clarify what kind of issue > > you feel wrong, and what kind of usage you hope to support :) > > Hi Josef, > > Although you didn't reply this email, but I think I might hit similar > problem with you recently when I tried to do a btrfs test. I wrote a > config.file likes: > Sorry I don't actually get emails to my inbox, I use lei so sometimes miss simple things like this. I'm using kdevops, and I had a general config that I was using for all hosts, except one host has a PCI passthrough ZNS device. So I have something akin to this [defaut] TEST_DIR=/mnt/test SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch [btrfs-normal] TEST_DEV=/dev/sda SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde /dev/sdf /dev/sdg /dev/sdh" SCRATCH_LOGDEV=/dev/loop0 [btrfs-zns] TEST_DEV=/dev/nvme0n1 SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/nvme1n1 [btrfs-compress] TEST_DEV=/dev/sda SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde /dev/sdf /dev/sdg /dev/sdh" SCRATCH_LOGDEV=/dev/loop0 MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o compress" If I tried to run ./check -s btrfs-compress it would fail because it couldn't find /dev/nvme0n1, despite it not being in the section I'm running. Thanks, Josef
