[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533DD6B0.6010102@sandeen.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:46:24 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
CC: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, xfs@....sgi.com,
lsf@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsf] [PATCH] xfstests-bld: Simplify determination of number
of CPUs in build-all
On 4/3/14, 1:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
...
>>> 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.
Oh, I see.
I'd never really thought about xfstests devices as "part of the system" -
since they're constantly scribbled on, re-made, etc, and managed wholly
by xfstests (at least the scratch device) - so the notion of using fstab
was just outside my realm of expected behaviors. :)
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists