On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:52 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:29 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 3:14 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Also test that d_ino of readdir entries and i_ino from /proc/locks are > > > consistent with st_ino and that inode numbers persist after rename to > > > new parent, drop caches and mount cycle. > > > > overlay/070 and overlay/071 fail for me like this: > > > > QA output created by 071 > > +flock: cannot open lock file > > /scratch/ovl-mnt/lowertestdir/blkdev: No such device or address > > ... > > > > I.e. there's no block dev with rdev=1/1. > > > > I don't see any other way to fix this, than to remove the device > > tests. > > I ran into similar complain when I worked on generic/564. > Apparently, this is not the first test that uses rdev b/1/1 and c/1/1 > so not sure how those tests work for everyone. > In generic/564 I used a loopdev as blockdev and /dev/zero as chardev. > > > Why are these needed? Is locking code in any way dependent on > > file type? > > > > Not strictly needed. > See that they already skip file types fifo|socket|symlink. > > But note that we are not testing locking, we are using /proc/locks > to get a peek at i_ino, so if we skip also blockdev and chardev, we > end up testing no special files at all for i_ino consistency. > Not the end of the world, but then again using loop dev and /dev/zero > would be quite trivial as well. > > If it bothers you, I can post a fix. Using /dev/loop and /dev/zero sounds good. Thanks, Miklos
