On 11/30/12 4:27 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:08:46AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 11/30/12 10:06 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> This will cause the $SCRATCH_DEV to be fscked if it was used in >>>> the prior test. Without this I don't think it gets done unless >>>> specifically requested by the test. >>> >>> This one looks good. >> >> Hm now that I think of it perhaps I should remove the explicit >> _check_scratch-es if they happen at the end of the run, just to >> try to speed things up. > > *nod* I'll send as another patch; I don't think there are really very many TBH. >>>> Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck doesn't >>>> complain. >>> >>> This one I can't make any sense of. Care to send it separately >>> with a good explanation? >>> >> >> Ok, sure. >> >> Basically, test does an rm -rf of the scrach mnt, but e2fsck >> thinks that a missing lost+found/ is cause for complaint and a >> failure exit code, which then stops the tests :( > > Shouldn't e2fsck be fixed? i.e. if you have a corrupted filesystem > and it's missing lost+found, how are you expected to create it? by > mounting your corrupted filesystem and modifying it and potentially > making the corruption worse? No, e2fsck fixes it, but reports that as an exit error condition even if nothing else is found. >> (hum, now that I think about it, maybe a broken scratch device >> shouldn't stop the test series, but should just log a test >> failure? What do you think?) > > Stop it - we should be leaving a corpse that we can dissect to find > out what went wrong. For a corrupted scratch filesystem, running > another test will eat the slowly rotting corpse and leave nothing > useful behind for diagnosing the failure... True, in most cases you could re-run the test, but maybe not. Ok, will leave that as-is. -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs