On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:23:28PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:41:56PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:14:05PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >> >> Miklos, > >> >> > >> >> Following your comments on the 'stable inodes' series from last week, > >> >> this series fixes constant inode numbers for stat(2) with any layer > >> >> configuration. > >> >> > >> >> For the case of all *lower* layers on same fs that supports NFS export, > >> >> redirect by file handle will be used to optimize the lookup of the copy > >> >> up origin of non-dir inode. > >> > > >> > I was trying to run unionmount-testsuite (original from dhowells) and I > >> > disabled layer check. Looks like empty directory rename test fails. > >> > > >> > *** > >> > *** ./run --ov --ts=0 rename-empty-dir > >> > *** > >> > TEST rename-empty-dir.py:10: Rename empty dir and rename back > >> > ./run --rename /mnt/a/empty100 /mnt/a/no_dir100 > >> > /mnt/a/empty100: Unexpected error: Invalid cross-device link > >> > > >> > >> Strange... I can't find code in recent times when this used to work > >> It certainly doesn't look like it should work with kernel v4.10 > >> and redirect_dir=off. > >> I couldn't the point of regression by looking at the change log. > >> You'd need to bisect to find the regression patch. > >> > >> Are you not compiling kernel with redirect_dir? > >> CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_REDIRECT_DIR=y > > > > I noticed that I am running with REDIRECT_DIR=n. > > > > I also re-ran the tests without your patches and test is still broken. So > > it is not due to your current patch series. > > > > It has been long time since I ran these tests. I suspect that we might > > have changed this behavior during redirect directory patches. > > > > So question is, is this a regression or expected behavior. That is with > > REDIRECT_DIR=n, renames of empty directory will be denied too. > > > > It must be a regression, although I can't think why anyone would care. > If one really cares about renaming lower empty directories, why not enable > REDIRECT_DIR? I will enable it now. I just had an old config and ran into this. But this does raise the question unionmount-testsuite need to be maintained somewhere so that it acts as a baseline to figure out if new patches broke some existing tests. I can go by the tree you are maintaining but currently that's broken too with REDIRECT_DIR=n. Vivek > > >> > >> I guess not. If you do compile or mount with -o redirect_dir=on, > >> you will need some minimal patches to unionmount-testsuite > >> that set the expectations correctly for directory rename. > >> > >> The last stable branch I have from testing v4.10 is this: > >> https://github.com/amir73il/unionmount-testsuite/commits/ovl_rename_dir > >> > >> But you may as well take my most recent branch for testing const ino: > >> https://github.com/amir73il/unionmount-testsuite/commits/overlayfs-devel > > > > I guess I should start using your copy of unionmount-testsuite. > > > > Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
