On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 05:08:17PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 08:24:00PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 02:28:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 03:27:15PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > c) Putting test subprocesses in a systemd sub-scope and telling systemd > > > > to kill the sub-scope could work because ./check can already use it to > > > > ensure that all child processes of a test are killed. However, this is > > > > an *optional* feature, which means that we'd have to require systemd. > > > > > > ... requiring systemd was somewhat of a show-stopper for testing > > > older distros. > > > > Isn't RHEL7 the oldest one at this point? And it does systemd. At this > > point the only reason I didn't go full systemd is out of consideration > > for Devuan, since they probably need QA. > > I have no idea what is out there in distro land vs what fstests > "supports". All I know is that there are distros out there that > don't use systemd. > > It feels like poor form to prevent generic filesystem QA > infrastructure from running on those distros by making an avoidable > choice to tie the infrastructure exclusively to systemd-based > functionality.... Agreed, though at some point after these bugfixes are merged I'll see if I can build on the existing "if you have systemd then ___ else here's your shabby opencoded version" logic in fstests to isolate the ./checks from each other a little better. It'd be kinda nice if we could actually just put them in something resembling a modernish container, albeit with the same underlying fs. <shrug> Anyone else interested in that? --D > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
