On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:48:36PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: > On 2017/12/04 17:25, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:15:17PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: > > > On 2017/12/04 16:29, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:02:26PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: > > > > > If the entire block device is formatted with a filesystem and > > > > > mounted, running "blockdev --rereadpt" should fail and return > > > > > EBUSY instead of pass. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang<yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > As we have blktests[1] now, I think this may fit in blktests better? > > > Hi Eryu, > > > > > > Do you think test cases which use scsi_debug module should be moved into > > > blktests? > > > (e.g. generic/108, generic/349, generic/350, generic/351) > > I don't think they need to be moved to blktests. Most other tests that > > take use of scsi_debug are for filesystem testing, e.g. generic/108. > > generic/349 generic/35[01] are a bit special, they were there before > > blktests was announced available, so they're in a special blockdev group > > and not in the auto group. If Omar agrees, I think they can be ported to > > blktests. > Hi Eryu, > > Thanks for your explanation, and i will try to send it to blktests. > > Thanks, > Xiao Yang I agree, the three tests Eryu mentioned and this new test would be a good fit for blktests. Let me know if you need any help porting, things are a little different from xfstests.
