On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 9:07 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 08:08:44PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Test overlayfs over xfs with and without "volatile" mount option. > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Zorro, > > > > I was going to make a generic test from xfs/546, so that overlayfs could > > also run it, but then I realized that ext4 does not behave as xfs in > > that case (it returns success on syncfs post shutdown). > > > > Unless and until this behavior is made a standard, I made an overlayfs > > specialized test instead, which checks for underlying fs xfs. > > While at it, I also added test coverage for the "volatile" mount options > > that is expected to return succuss in that case regardles of the > > behavior of the underlying fs. > > As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think that's a bug in ext4 that > needs fixing, not a divergence of a testcase. Perhaps we ought to > promote xfs/546 to generic/ and (if Ted disagrees with me about the EIO) > add a _notrun for the overlayfs-on-ext4 case? > Well, I have the generic test ready, but it would also need to notrun on ext4 I would rather wait to see what Ted says. I don't mind promoting xfs/546 to generic/ if there is an agreement, but since I need test coverage for the overlayfs "volatile" mount option, I think I will have added this overlayfs test variant anyway. If ext4 shutdown code changes and there is a general agreement that the behavior in xfs/546 is expected from all filesystems, then I will be able to remove the requirement of "only over xfs" from this overlayfs test variant. Thanks, Amir.
