> On Nov 22, 2024, at 3:49 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 10:30 PM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 01:18:05PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, Chuck Lever III wrote: >>>> >>>> I will note that tmpfs hangs during generic/449 for me 100% >>>> of the time; the failure appears unrelated to renames. Do you >>>> know if there is regular CI being done for tmpfs? I'm planning >>>> to add it to my nightly test rig once I'm done here. >>> >>> For me generic/449 did not hang, just took a long time to discover >>> something uninteresting and eventually declare "not run". Took >>> 14 minutes six years ago, when I gave up on it and short-circuited >>> the "not run" with the patch below. >>> >>> (I carry about twenty patches for my own tmpfs fstests testing; but >>> many of those are just for ancient 32-bit environment, or to suit the >>> "huge=always" option. I never have enough time/priority to review and >>> post them, but can send you a tarball if they might of use to you.) >>> >>> generic/449 is one of those tests which expects metadata to occupy >>> space inside the "disk", in a way which it does not on tmpfs (and a >>> quick glance at its history suggests btrfs also had issues with it). >>> >>> [PATCH] generic/449: not run on tmpfs earlier >>> >>> Do not waste 14 minutes to discover that tmpfs succeeds in >>> setting acls despite running out of space for user attrs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> tests/generic/449 | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/tests/generic/449 b/tests/generic/449 >>> index 9cf814ad..a52a992b 100755 >>> --- a/tests/generic/449 >>> +++ b/tests/generic/449 >>> @@ -22,6 +22,11 @@ _require_test >>> _require_acls >>> _require_attrs trusted >>> >>> +if [ "$FSTYP" = "tmpfs" ]; then >>> + # Do not waste 14 minutes to discover this: >>> + _notrun "$FSTYP succeeds in setting acls despite running out of space for user attrs" >>> +fi >>> + >>> _scratch_mkfs_sized $((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >> $seqres.full 2>&1 >>> _scratch_mount || _fail "mount failed" >>> >>> -- >>> 2.35.3 >> >> My approach (until I could look into the failure more) has been >> similar: >> >> diff --git a/tests/generic/449 b/tests/generic/449 >> index 9cf814ad326c..8307a43ce87f 100755 >> --- a/tests/generic/449 >> +++ b/tests/generic/449 >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ _require_scratch >> _require_test >> _require_acls >> _require_attrs trusted >> +_supported_fs ^nfs ^overlay ^tmpfs >> > > nfs and overlay are _notrun because they do not support _scratch_mkfs_sized > >> _scratch_mkfs_sized $((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >> $seqres.full 2>&1 >> _scratch_mount || _fail "mount failed" >> >> >> I stole it from somewhere else, so it's not tmpfs-specific. > > I think opt-out for a certain fs makes sense in some tests, but it is > prefered to describe the requirement that is behind the opt-out. > > For example, you thought that nfs,overlay,tmpfs should all opt-out > from this test. Why? Which property do they share in common and > how can it be described in a generic way? > > I am not talking about a property that can be checked. > Sometimes we need to make groups of filesystems that share a common > property that cannot be tested, to better express the requirements. > > _fstyp_has_non_default_seek_data_hole() is the only example that > comes to mind but there could be others. Adding a rationale is sensible. I don't have one, but here is the limit of my thinking: "^nfs" is in this mix because I test NFSD with a tmpfs export semi-regularly, and it suffers from the same problem. "^overlay" doesn't have any reason to be here except that it was part of the line I stole from elsewhere. But the top-level question is "does it make sense to exclude tmpfs from generic/449, or is there something that should be fixed to make it pass quickly?" -- Chuck Lever
