On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 06:50:20PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 05:06:20PM +0000, Luis Henriques (SUSE) wrote: > > Creating an ext4 filesystem using '-O journal' will fail with: > > > > Invalid filesystem option set: journal > > > > I didn't do any archaeological investigation to check if this option ever > > existed, but the two tests using it will fail to create the scratch > > filesystems. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques (SUSE) <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxx> > > The feature name has never been journal, but rather has_journal. The > reason why no once noticed is because the file system was created by > the _require_attrs before the attempted _scratch_mkfs_ext4. So when > _scratch_mkfs_ext4 failed, it was a no-op that didn't actually do > anything, and there was still a file system the default configuration > for the test scenario. > > What puzzles me is why there was an attempt to enable the journal > feature in the first place. As near as I can tell, the tests don't > change what gets tested whether or not the journal is enabled. > Darrick; you had added these tests were you were working on ext4's > metadata checksum feature; do you remember your thinking at the time? "Qwklgjwlqaetwqjetlweqqlgqgqtrrt", most likely. > In any case, either better fix is to replace: > > _scratch_mkfs_ext4 -O journal > /dev/null 2>&1 > > with: > > _scratch_mkfs_ext4 -O has_journal >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > Or: > > _scratch_mkfs -O has_journal >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > My preference would be latter, since I'm regularly testing with and > without the journal, and I'd much rather run the test with whatever > configuration I'm currently testing (e.g., ext4/4k, ext4/1k, > ext4/nojournal, ext4/ext3conv, ext4/bigalloc, etc.) I'm ok with either, though _scratch_mkfs -O has_journal is more consistent with the way XFS fuzz tests do things. Sorry about that. :/ --D > - Ted > >
