On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 11:46:53PM +0200, Daniel Gomez (Samsung) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:36 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 11:52:41PM +0200, Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Add support for test device recreation (RECREATE_TEST_DEV=true) for
> > > tmpfs.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > common/rc | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> > > index 163041fea..51827119c 100644
> > > --- a/common/rc
> > > +++ b/common/rc
> > > @@ -604,6 +604,9 @@ _test_mkfs()
> > > pvfs2)
> > > # do nothing for pvfs2
> > > ;;
> > > + tmpfs)
> >
> > Indentation problem here.
>
> What's actually the format for indentation in bash scripts across
> xfstests-dev project? I see a mix of tabs and spaces everywhere. For
> this particular _test_mkfs(), I see:
> <spaces>overlay)
> <tabs># do nothing for overlay
> <tabs>;;
> <spaces>pvfs2)
> <tabs># do nothing for pvfs2
> <tabs>;;
> <spaces>udf)
> <spaces><spaces>$MKFS_UDF_PROG ...
> <tabs>;;
> <spaces>btrfs)
> <spaces><spaces>$MKFS_BTRFS_PROG...
I don't think there's a set convention anywhere, I usually just copy the
thing above it. I was reacting to the diff; if you actually just copied
the pvfs2 clause and then s/pvfs2/tmpfs/ then I withdraw the comment.
> > > + # do nothing for tmpfs
> >
> > If we're recreating the test filesystem, shouldn't that unmount and
> > remount for tmpfs? Or at least rm -rf everything underneath it? That's
> > generally the effect of _test_mkfs for disk filesystems.
>
> I thought this was already supported. When I enable recreation, I get
> the following error:
>
> ./check -s tmpfs_huge_always -R xunit generic/003
> SECTION -- tmpfs_huge_always
> RECREATING -- tmpfs on /media/test
> our local _test_mkfs routine ...
> mkfs: failed to execute mkfs.tmpfs: No such file or directory
> check: failed to mkfs $TEST_DEV using specified options
> Interrupted!
> Interrupted!
> Passed all 0 tests
> Xunit report: /result.xml
> SECTION -- tmpfs_huge_always
> =========================
> Passed all 0 tests
>
> So, adding the tmpfs) case to _test_mkfs() just lets recreation go
> through, and mount and umount when the test is finished. I'm not sure
> if I'm missing something or maybe I should rename this patch as a fix?
Ah! Yes, you're right, I forgot that there is no mkfs.tmpfs, everything
is done by mount -t tmpfs. Can you change the comment to explain why
_test_mkfs does nothing for tmpfs?
tmpfs)
# mount initializes the fs, no need to format anything
;;
for dunces like me? :)
> >
> > (That said, I'm much less familiar with non-disk filesystems...)
>
> When umounting a tmpfs mount dir, data is lost. So in the recreation
> case, _test_unmount() would take care of that.
<nod>
--D
> >
> > --D
> >
> > > + ;;
> > > udf)
> > > $MKFS_UDF_PROG $MKFS_OPTIONS $* $TEST_DEV > /dev/null
> > > ;;
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
