Re: [PATCH 5/5] common/rc: print scratch and test mount options

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 08:55:55AM GMT, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 06:17:26AM +0000, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> > Mount options for a SCRATCH device might not be the same in the TEST
> > device if RECREATE_TEST_DEV is not enabled. So, print mount options for
> > each device to clarify this.
> > 
> > Add mount and mkfs info for TEST devices so we get the same information
> > being printed for both devices.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  check     |  4 ++++
> >  common/rc | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> >  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/check b/check
> > index 723a52e30..e02d28b39 100755
> > --- a/check
> > +++ b/check
> > @@ -807,7 +807,11 @@ function run_section()
> >  	# print out our test configuration
> >  	echo "FSTYP         -- `_full_fstyp_details`"
> >  	echo "PLATFORM      -- `_full_platform_details`"
> > +	echo "TEST device:"
> > +	echo "MKFS_OPTIONS  -- `_test_mkfs_options`"
> > +	echo "MOUNT_OPTIONS -- `_test_mount_options`"
> >  	if [ ! -z "$SCRATCH_DEV" ]; then
> > +	  echo "SCRATCH device:"
> >  	  echo "MKFS_OPTIONS  -- `_scratch_mkfs_options`"
> >  	  echo "MOUNT_OPTIONS -- `_scratch_mount_options`"
> 
> Now there are two lines that start with "MKFS_OPTIONS"; will this break
> anyone's parsing scripts?  Or should these be prefixed:
> 
> echo "TEST_MKFS_OPTIONS -- `_test_mkfs_options`"
> ...
> echo "SCRATCH_MKFS_OPTIONS -- `_scratch_mkfs_options`"
> 
> ?

This looks like my initial version, but I prefer the 'sub-menu style' because
we did not have these variables before. However, I think it makes sense to
introduce them so we can differentiate between them. 

I guess introducing this change would break anyone's parsing scripts regardless?
However, I do think is necessary to specify the mount differences.

> 
> Also should these four variables be captured explicitly by the reports
> that are generated by common/report ?

I guess the report only includes the scratch mount options. I will update it to
include the new specific test and scratch mount/mkfs options.

> 
> --D
> 
> >  	fi
> > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> > index a42792c37..b351a82eb 100644
> > --- a/common/rc
> > +++ b/common/rc
> > @@ -235,6 +235,17 @@ _scratch_mount_options()
> >  					$SCRATCH_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT
> >  }
> >  
> > +_test_mount_options()
> > +{
> > +	_test_options mount
> > +
> > +	if $RECREATE_TEST_DEV || [ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]; then
> > +		echo $TEST_OPTIONS $TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS $SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS $TMPFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS $* $TEST_DEV $TEST_DIR
> > +	else
> > +		echo $TEST_OPTIONS $TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS $SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS $* $TEST_DEV $TEST_DIR
> > +	fi
> > +}
> > +
> >  _supports_filetype()
> >  {
> >  	local dir=$1
> > @@ -456,8 +467,7 @@ _test_mount()
> >          return $?
> >      fi
> >  
> > -    _test_options mount
> > -    _mount -t $FSTYP$FUSE_SUBTYP $TEST_OPTIONS $TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS $SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS $TMPFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS $* $TEST_DEV $TEST_DIR
> > +    _mount -t $FSTYP$FUSE_SUBTYP `_test_mount_options $*`
> >      mount_ret=$?
> >      [ $mount_ret -ne 0 ] && return $mount_ret
> >      _idmapped_mount $TEST_DEV $TEST_DIR
> > @@ -571,6 +581,12 @@ _metadump_dev() {
> >  	esac
> >  }
> >  
> > +_test_mkfs_options()
> > +{
> > +	_test_options mkfs
> > +	echo $TEST_OPTIONS $MKFS_OPTIONS $* $TEST_DEV
> > +}
> > +
> >  _test_mkfs()
> >  {
> >      case $FSTYP in
> > -- 
> > 2.43.0
> > 




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux