On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 6:25 AM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 07:32:42PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 04:01:42AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > Fstests supports overlayfs testing with different underlying fs, for example > > > if you want to test overlay with ext4, you can set local.config as: > > > > > > FSTYP=ext4 > > > TEST_DEV=/dev/sdb > > > TEST_DIR=/mnt/test > > > SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdc > > > SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch > > > > Yes, I know. My test appliances has autmation around setting local.config > > > > > > > > then does: > > > # mkfs.ext4 -F $TEST_DEV > > > # mkfs.ext4 -F $SCRACH_DEV > > > # mkdir /mnt/test > > > # mkdir /mnt/scratch > > > # ./check -overlay -g auto > > > > > > For more details you can refer to xfstests/README.overlay. > > > > > > Currently fstests only supports overlayfs testing as this, other fs, e.g. nfs, > > > has to prepare nfs SCRATCH_DEV and TEST_DEV by the user. I'm thinking about > > > supporting other upper fs testing likes overlay (if it's helpful). > > > > I have automation that handles this, so I'm good: > > > > ./kvm-xfstests --primary-fstype xfs -c overlay/default -g auto > > > > My point was that might be the reason why it might be convenient for > > the test generic/699 being in generic/ instead of overlay/, since it > > means that people who are runing a large number of configs, e.g.: > > > > ./kvm-xfstests -c ext4/default,xfs/default,btrfs/default generic/699 > > > > can easily test overlayfs with idmapping with different underlying > > file systems. (Note: this is where my automation will write to > > local.config while iterating across different file system configs). > > Yeah, that's why I left this case in generic/, I thought Christian Brauner > might want that -- "do this idmapped mount test on overlay, no matter he > tests on each kind of underlying fs". So I cc Christian Brauner, to check > if that's his purpose. > I don't think that's not the reason - the reason is that the integration of idmapped tests and ./check -overlay is not trivial when overlayfs idmapped mount are not supported. > > > > Is it worth regularly running generic/699 across multiple underyling > > file systmes? I dunno; I'll let other people chime in on it, since I > > don't really use overayfs with idmapping myself, and I haven't > > examined the code paths in question myself. > There is another generic test that "_require_extra_fs overlay" and is not an "overlayfs test" - generic/631. This test open codes mount -t overlay explicitly. _overlay_mount_dirs was written as a helper for overlayfs tests that run with ./check -overlay. We could fix generic/699 with MOUNT_OPTIONS="" _overlay_mount_dirs Since there is not really much in this helper, my preference is to open code mount -t overlay, but I don't mind the former. Thanks, Amir.
