On 3/9/12 7:28 AM, David Sterba wrote: > Hi, > > I've encountered a bad situation when a failed mount in test 269 did not stop > the test and continued to use the mount point and exhausted space on the root > partition. A quick grep revealed that there are more tests with unchecked > _scratch_mount calls. > > The underlying problem with failed mount was observed when the mount comes in a > quick sequence after mount, I saw it with btrfs, and don't know if it affects > other filesystems. > > So, either all callers should check the return value or _scratch_mount > calls _fail. I'd go for the latter as it will make it more resilient > against unintentional ommision of checking the retval in new tests and > reviewer does not have keep that in mind. Sounds good to me; _test_mount() should probably do the same? I guess it'd be worth investigating exactly why it failed, though. Still, if you'd like to send a patch to _fail in the mount helpers if they fail, that sounds reasonable to me. Thanks, -Eric > > david > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
