On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 10:34:24AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:59:41AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > XFS has an issue where superblock counters may not be properly > > synced when recovery occurs via a read-only mount. This causes the > > filesystem to become inconsistent after unmount. To cover this test > > case, update generic/388 to switch between read-only and read-write > > mounts to perform log recovery. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > I didn't think it was worth duplicating generic/388 to a whole new test > > just to invoke log recovery from a read-only mount. generic/388 is a > > rather general log recovery test and this preserves historical behavior > > of the test. > > > > A prospective fix for the issue this reproduces on XFS is posted here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20201217145334.2512475-1-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Brian > > > > tests/generic/388 | 10 ++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/388 b/tests/generic/388 > > index 451a6be2..cdd547f4 100755 > > --- a/tests/generic/388 > > +++ b/tests/generic/388 > > @@ -66,8 +66,14 @@ for i in $(seq 1 $((50 * TIME_FACTOR)) ); do > > ps -e | grep fsstress > /dev/null 2>&1 > > done > > > > - # quit if mount fails so we don't shutdown the host fs > > - _scratch_cycle_mount || _fail "cycle mount failed" > > + # Toggle between rw and ro mounts for recovery. Quit if any mount > > + # attempt fails so we don't shutdown the host fs. > > + if [ $((RANDOM % 2)) -eq 0 ]; then > > + _scratch_cycle_mount || _fail "cycle mount failed" > > + else > > + _scratch_cycle_mount "ro" || _fail "cycle ro mount failed" > > + _scratch_cycle_mount || _fail "cycle mount failed" > > I would change that third failure message to something distinct, like: > > _fail "cycle remount failed" > > To give us extra clues as to which branch encountered failure. > This looks like a fun way to find new bugs. :) > Sure.. I tweaked it to "cycle rw mount failed" so it's distinct, yet more consistent with the preceding ro cycle. Brian > --D > > > + fi > > done > > > > # success, all done > > -- > > 2.26.2 > > >
