On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 07:35:44PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/12/14, 7:21 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > On fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:15:37 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> On 1/8/14, 12:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >>> Test remount btrfs with different pairing options like barrier and no barrier. > >> It seems that while this tests that the remount succeeds, and that > >> the option string is present in /proc/mounts, it does not test that > >> the mount option is actually in effect. > > > > Yes, this is what the new test case is intended to do. > > This case was just a test case tests the mount options themselves > > to ensure all the pairing mount options works during remounting, > > since most pairing options are missing before. > >> > >> I suppose for many of these options that would be hard to test; for > >> i.e. acl though it should be trivial. > >> > >> What do you think, is this enough to ensure that remount handling > >> is working as expected for all of these options? > > In my opinion, this test should just focuses on the remount handling and > > the pairing options. > > For the detailed function should be examineed in other test cases. > > Except those won't test that a remount with those options actually *worked*; > in fact they don't do remount at all. > > In other words, all this does is test that an option flag was set or unset in > the superblock, but it doesn't really test whether the option has been > properly set up (or torn down) as a result. > > I won't say no to this, but it seems to be of somewhat limited use. What happens to the test when mount options are deprecated/removed? How are we going to handle the matrix of testable/untestable mount options across kernels with different mount option support? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
