On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:43:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > Except fail_at_unmount, all EIO error handling can stop umount hanging > on IO error too. This case only tested fail_at_unmount before, so add > EIO/max_retries and EIO/retry_timeout_seconds test. > > Now this case test three situation when unmount hit EIO: > 1) fail_at_unmount=1 && \ > EIO/max_retries=-1 && \ > EIO/retry_timeout_seconds=0 > > 2) fail_at_unmount=0 && \ > EIO/max_retries=1 && \ > EIO/retry_timeout_seconds=0 > > 3) fail_at_unmount=0 && \ > EIO/max_retries=-1 && \ > EIO/retry_timeout_seconds=1 > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Hi, > > There're three patches from Eric fix XFS error handling bugs: > 5539d36 xfs: don't reset b_retries to 0 on every failure > 0b4db5d xfs: remove extraneous buffer flag changes > e97f6c5 xfs: fix xfs_error_get_cfg for negative errnos > > Without these patches, configurable error handling cannot be properly > set, and once set is not honored. > > For test part of this bug, add EIO error handling test into xfs/006. > The kernel with above 3 patches shouldn't hang on xfs/006. > > I haven't got an idea about how to test ENOSPC and default error > handling. So use EIO test to prove above patches can work well > on EIO handling at least. Can you put this into a new test? We don't tend to extend tests to add new cases, we add new tests instead. Factor the common parts of the tests into generic functions in common/ somewhere and call them from each test. This way adding new test cases doesn't cause tests that previously passed to fail and hence signal false regressions. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
