On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:01:30AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:40:12AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > IOWs, adding tmpfs changes the definition of a "generic" test. > > > > i.e. instead of: > > > > _supported_fs generic > > > > these tests are now: > > > > _supported_fs xfs ext2 ext3 ext4 ext4dev btrfs gfs2 nfs udf reiserfs > > > > and by that definition should be in the tests/shared directory.... > > > > That's a bit of a pain, but I really don't like the idea of having > > "generic" tests that aren't actually generic by having to define > > exceptions for them... > > We already have tons of these: Yes, but that's not the same situation as tmpfs here. A generic filesystem fits a certain model but the given configuration/kernel does not necessarily support the feature being tested. Those features are easily testable by a _requires_* line. This case with tmpfs is different - it doesn't support *being unmounted* during a test because it is volatile. That's a fundamental change to the assumptions xfstests makes about filesystems being tested. IOWs, we've got a "generic" filesystem that is anything but generic. Adding "_requires_non_volatile_fs" to all the generic tests that do an unmount so that tmpfs can be considered "generic" is just as painful as modifying the "_supported_fs generic" lines in all the tests. It just leads us to a game of whack-a-mole. I don't know what the solution here is - everything I think of is either messy, ugly or unmaintainable. All I'm trying to do is find a way to handle tmpfs filesystems in a way that is maintainable and doesn't require every developer to be aware of the quirks of tmpfs when writing and reviewing new generic tests.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
