[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250113131103.tb25jtgkepw4xreo@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:11:03 +0800
From: Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>
To: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, ritesh.list@...il.com,
ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, djwong@...nel.org, zlang@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 02:22:20PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>
> On 1/13/25 11:29, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 03:21:51PM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> > > Bug Description:
> > >
> > > _test_mount function is failing with the following error:
> > > ./common/rc: line 4716: _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown: command not found
> > > check: failed to mount /dev/loop0 on /mnt1/test
> > >
> > > when the second section in local.config file is xfs and the first section
> > > is non-xfs.
> > >
> > > It can be easily reproduced with the following local.config file
> > >
> > > [s2]
> > > export FSTYP=ext4
> > > export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
> > > export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test
> > > export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
> > > export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch
> > >
> > > [s1]
> > > export FSTYP=xfs
> > > export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
> > > export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test
> > > export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
> > > export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch
> > >
> > > ./check selftest/001
> > >
> > > Root cause:
> > > When _test_mount() is executed for the second section, the FSTYPE has
> > > already changed but the new fs specific common/$FSTYP has not yet
> > > been done. Hence _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown() is not found and
> > > the test run fails.
> > >
> > > Fix:
> > > call _source_specific_fs $FSTYP at the correct call site of _test_mount()
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nirjhar Roy (IBM) <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > check | 1 +
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/check b/check
> > > index 607d2456..8cdbb68f 100755
> > > --- a/check
> > > +++ b/check
> > > @@ -776,6 +776,7 @@ function run_section()
> > > if $RECREATE_TEST_DEV || [ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]; then
> > > echo "RECREATING -- $FSTYP on $TEST_DEV"
> > > _test_unmount 2> /dev/null
> > > + [[ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]] && _source_specific_fs $FSTYP
> > The _source_specific_fs is called when importing common/rc file:
> >
> > # check for correct setup and source the $FSTYP specific functions now
> > _source_specific_fs $FSTYP
> >
> > From the code logic of check script:
> >
> > if $RECREATE_TEST_DEV || [ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]; then
> > echo "RECREATING -- $FSTYP on $TEST_DEV"
> > _test_unmount 2> /dev/null
> > if ! _test_mkfs >$tmp.err 2>&1
> > then
> > echo "our local _test_mkfs routine ..."
> > cat $tmp.err
> > echo "check: failed to mkfs \$TEST_DEV using specified options"
> > status=1
> > exit
> > fi
> > if ! _test_mount
> > then
> > echo "check: failed to mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
> > status=1
> > exit
> > fi
> > # TEST_DEV has been recreated, previous FSTYP derived from
> > # TEST_DEV could be changed, source common/rc again with
> > # correct FSTYP to get FSTYP specific configs, e.g. common/xfs
> > . common/rc
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > we import common/rc at here.
> >
> > So I'm wondering if we can move this line upward, to fix the problem you
> > hit (and don't bring in regression :) Does that help?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
>
> Okay so we can move ". common/rc" upward and then remove the following from
> "check" file:
>
> if ! _test_mount
> then
> echo "check: failed to mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
> status=1
> exit
> fi
>
> since . common/rc will call init_rc() in the end, which does a
> _test_mount(). Do you agree with this (Zorro and Ritesh)?
>
> I can make the changes and send a v2?
Hmm... the _init_rc doesn't do _test_mkfs, so you might need to do
". common/rc" after "_test_mkfs", rather than "_test_unmount".
By checking the _init_rc, I think it can replace the _test_mount you metioned
above. Some details might need more testing, to make sure we didn't miss
anything wrong:)
Any review points from others?
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> --NR
>
> >
> >
> > > if ! _test_mkfs >$tmp.err 2>&1
> > > then
> > > echo "our local _test_mkfs routine ..."
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
> > >
> --
> Nirjhar Roy
> Linux Kernel Developer
> IBM, Bangalore
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists