On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/3/14, 11:35 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >>> - There's an undocumented way to write results outside the source >>> tree called RESULT_BASE. It would be great if it were documented and >>> spelled consistently. > > I'm not actually certain that it was intended to be used this way. > See 1686f9ab "xfstests: Introduce a results directory" > which explains just where this variable came from and what it's > for... Yeah. A real solution should just create and overmount results. Unfortunately, AFAICT it's currently impossible to create a mountpoint with no underlying dentry or to overmount a symlink, so this can be a bit awkward. >>> - SCRATCH_MNT needs to be in /etc/fstab. I think that this should be >>> changed or documented. If the latter, then SCRATCH_DEV seems >>> redundant. > > Hm, I've never needed SCRATCH_MNT in /etc/fstab... > >> The various test scripts do need to be able to find the device where >> the file system lives, and parsing /etc/fstab would be awkward. So if >> your comment is that either the /etc/fstab entry shouldn't be >> required, or the xfstests runtime environment should be able to derive >> $SCRATCH_DEV automatically from $SCRATCH_MNT, or vice versa, instead > > I guess I don't know why you'd expect to derive one from the other... Sigh. If $SCRATCH_MNT is specified, then the line in /etc/fstab is unnecessary. If $SCRATCH_MNT is not specified, then /etc/fstab will do the trick. What does not work is specifying $SCRATCH_DIR [sic] but not adding an fstab entry. Oops. --Andy _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
