On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 04:57:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/3/13 4:53 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > >> Anyway, what if you did something more along the lines of [pseudocode] > >> > >> ocfs2) > >> if mounted.ocfs2 -f $TEST-DEV | frob_as_necessary[1] > >> ; > >> else > >> fsck.ocfs2 $TEST-DEV > >> fi > >> ;; > >> > >> so that *if* it's mounted on some other node, the fsck won't run. > >> That has downsides as Dave mentioned, but for the case where the > >> xfstests node is the only one with it in use, it'll still do the > >> beneficial consistency check. > >> > >> Just tweaking the fsck action bsed on *if* it's mounted (or, > >> maybe, if the node is in a cluster?) might be a more generic solution > >> that is widely applicable to all ocfs2 test environments. > > > > Good point. mounted.ocfs2 really makes sense. I'll implement this on my > > test suite and submit a new patch. > > Sounds good to me. > > It'd be most preferable to do a cluster-wide unmount and fsck, Which makes no sense to me, because ./check will then do a cluster wide unmount as it runs the test harness initialisation. Hence all the subsequent tests will run with the filesystem only mounted on the local node.... Really, xfstests is not designed for testing cluster filesystems in clustered environments. If we really want to support clustered filesystems and cluster wide operations, then we need to think about how to architect multi-host support into xfstests sanely. Clustered filesystems are not the only people that could make use of such functionality (NFS and CIFS come to mind).... ;) Cheers, Dave/ -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
