On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 11:32:43PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>
> On 2/1/25 12:05, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 08:24:57AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 06:49:50PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> > > > On 1/29/25 21:32, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 04:48:10PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> > > > > > On 1/28/25 23:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:00:22AM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bug Description:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _test_mount function is failing with the following error:
> > > > > > > > ./common/rc: line 4716: _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown: command not found
> > > > > > > > check: failed to mount /dev/loop0 on /mnt1/test
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > when the second section in local.config file is xfs and the first section
> > > > > > > > is non-xfs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It can be easily reproduced with the following local.config file
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [s2]
> > > > > > > > export FSTYP=ext4
> > > > > > > > export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
> > > > > > > > export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test
> > > > > > > > export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
> > > > > > > > export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [s1]
> > > > > > > > export FSTYP=xfs
> > > > > > > > export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
> > > > > > > > export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test
> > > > > > > > export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
> > > > > > > > export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ./check selftest/001
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Root cause:
> > > > > > > > When _test_mount() is executed for the second section, the FSTYPE has
> > > > > > > > already changed but the new fs specific common/$FSTYP has not yet
> > > > > > > > been done. Hence _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown() is not found and
> > > > > > > > the test run fails.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fix:
> > > > > > > > Remove the additional _test_mount in check file just before ". commom/rc"
> > > > > > > > since ". commom/rc" is already sourcing fs specific imports and doing a
> > > > > > > > _test_mount.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fixes: 1a49022fab9b4 ("fstests: always use fail-at-unmount semantics for XFS")
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nirjhar Roy (IBM) <nirjhar.roy.lists@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > check | 12 +++---------
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/check b/check
> > > > > > > > index 607d2456..5cb4e7eb 100755
> > > > > > > > --- a/check
> > > > > > > > +++ b/check
> > > > > > > > @@ -784,15 +784,9 @@ function run_section()
> > > > > > > > status=1
> > > > > > > > exit
> > > > > > > > fi
> > > > > > > > - if ! _test_mount
> > > > > > > Don't we want to _test_mount the newly created filesystem still? But
> > > > > > > perhaps after sourcing common/rc ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --D
> > > > > > common/rc calls init_rc() in the end and init_rc() already does a
> > > > > > _test_mount. _test_mount after sourcing common/rc will fail, won't it? Does
> > > > > > that make sense?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > init_rc()
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > # make some further configuration checks here
> > > > > > if [ "$TEST_DEV" = "" ]
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > echo "common/rc: Error: \$TEST_DEV is not set"
> > > > > > exit 1
> > > > > > fi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # if $TEST_DEV is not mounted, mount it now as XFS
> > > > > > if [ -z "`_fs_type $TEST_DEV`" ]
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > # $TEST_DEV is not mounted
> > > > > > if ! _test_mount
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > echo "common/rc: retrying test device mount with external set"
> > > > > > [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" != "yes" ] && export USE_EXTERNAL=yes
> > > > > > if ! _test_mount
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > echo "common/rc: could not mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
> > > > > > exit 1
> > > > > > fi
> > > > > > fi
> > > > > > fi
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > ahahahaha yes it does.
> > > > >
> > > > > /commit message reading comprehension fail, sorry about that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Though now that you point it out, should check elide the init_rc call
> > > > > about 12 lines down if it re-sourced common/rc ?
> > > > Yes, it should. init_rc() is getting called twice when common/rc is getting
> > > > re-sourced. Maybe I can do like
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > if $RECREATE_TEST_DEV || [ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]; then
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > . common/rc # changes in this patch
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > elif [ "$OLD_TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" != "$TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" ]; then
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > init_rc() # explicitly adding an init_rc() for this condition
> > > >
> > > > else
> > > >
> > > > init_rc() # # explicitly adding an init_rc() for all other conditions.
> > > > This will prevent init_rc() from getting called twice during re-sourcing
> > > > common/rc
> > > >
> > > > fi
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > Sounds fine as a mechanical change, but I wonder, should calling init_rc
> > > be explicit? There are not so many places that source common/rc:
> > >
> > > $ git grep 'common/rc'
> > > check:362:if ! . ./common/rc; then
> > > check:836: . common/rc
> > > common/preamble:52: . ./common/rc
> > > soak:7:. ./common/rc
> > > tests/generic/749:18:. ./common/rc
> > >
> > > (I filtered out the non-executable matches)
> > >
> > > I think the call in generic/749 is unnecessary and I don't know what
> > > soak does. But that means that one could insert an explicit call to
> > > init_rc at line 366 and 837 in check and at line 53 in common/preamble,
> > > and we can clean up one more of those places where sourcing a common/
> > > file actually /does/ something quietly under the covers.
> > >
> > > (Unless the maintainer is ok with the status quo...?)
> > I think people just hope to import the helpers in common/rc mostly, don't
> > want to run init_rc again. Maybe we can make sure the init_rc is only run
> > once each time?
> >
> > E.g.
> >
> > if [ _INIT_RC != "done" ];then
> > init_rc
> > _INIT_RC="done"
> > fi
> >
> > Or any better idea.
>
> Yes, this idea looks good too. However, after thinking a bit more, I like
> Darrick's idea to remove the call to init_rc from common/rc and explicitly
> calling them explicitly whenever necessary makes more sense. This also makes
> the interface/reason to source common/rc more meaningful, and also not
> making common/rc do something via init_rc silently. What do you think?
Sorry I'm on a travel, reply you late. I don't like to run codes in include
files either :) If we remove the init_rc calling from common/rc we might
need to do 2 things:
1) xfstests/check needs to run init_rc, calls it in check properly.
2) Now each sub-cases run init_rc when they import common/rc, I think
we can call init_rc in common/preamble:_begin_fstest().
If I miss other things, please feel free to remind me:)
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> --NR
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> >
> > > --D
> > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > --D
> > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --NR
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - then
> > > > > > > > - echo "check: failed to mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
> > > > > > > > - status=1
> > > > > > > > - exit
> > > > > > > > - fi
> > > > > > > > - # TEST_DEV has been recreated, previous FSTYP derived from
> > > > > > > > - # TEST_DEV could be changed, source common/rc again with
> > > > > > > > - # correct FSTYP to get FSTYP specific configs, e.g. common/xfs
> > > > > > > > + # Previous FSTYP derived from TEST_DEV could be changed, source
> > > > > > > > + # common/rc again with correct FSTYP to get FSTYP specific configs,
> > > > > > > > + # e.g. common/xfs
> > > > > > > > . common/rc
> > > > > > > > _prepare_test_list
> > > > > > > > elif [ "$OLD_TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" != "$TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" ]; then
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Nirjhar Roy
> > > > > > Linux Kernel Developer
> > > > > > IBM, Bangalore
> > > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nirjhar Roy
> > > > Linux Kernel Developer
> > > > IBM, Bangalore
> > > >
> > > >
> --
> Nirjhar Roy
> Linux Kernel Developer
> IBM, Bangalore
>
