On Feb 08, 2022 / 16:35, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 03:55:36PM +0900, Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > The test cases generic/{171,172,173,174,204} call _scratch_mkfs before
> > _scratch_mkfs_sized, and they do not check return code of
> > _scratch_mkfs_sized. Even if _scratch_mkfs_sized failed, _scratch_mount
> > after it cannot detect the sized mkfs failure because _scratch_mkfs
> > already created a file system on the device. This results in unexpected
> > test condition of the test cases.
> >
> > To avoid the unexpected test condition, check return code of
> > _scratch_mkfs_sized in the test cases.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@xxxxxxx>
>
> Hm. I wonder, are there other tests that employ this _scratch_mkfs ->
> scratch_mkfs_sized sequence and need patching?
>
> $ git grep -l _scratch_mkfs_sized | while read f; do grep -q
> '_scratch_mkfs[[:space:]]' $f && echo $f; done
> common/encrypt
> common/rc
> tests/ext4/021
> tests/generic/171
> tests/generic/172
> tests/generic/173
> tests/generic/174
> tests/generic/204
> tests/generic/520
> tests/generic/525
> tests/xfs/015
>
> generic/520 is a false positive, and you patched the rest. OK, good.
>
> I wonder if the maintainer will ask for the _scratch_mkfs_sized in the
> failure output, but as far as I'm concerned:
>
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you for reviewing. As for g/204, I will remove _scratch_mkfs call as you
suggested in other e-mail. So, I think this error check addition is no longer
required for g/204, and will drop the g/204 hunk from this patch. I wonder if
I can add your Reviewed-by tag with this change, but to be strict, I plan not
to add the tag for v2 post.
--
Best Regards,
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
