Don't run 175-177 if DMAPI is not supported
PATCH 1/1 Don't run 175-177 if DMAPI is not supported
Don't run tests 175, 176 or 177 if dmapi is not supported by the underlying kernel.
--- xfstests/175 | 5 +++++ xfstests/176 | 5 +++++ xfstests/177 | 5 +++++ 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
xfstests/175 +5 -0
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ _cleanup() # get standard environment, filters and checks . ./common.rc . ./common.filter +. ./common.dmapi . ./common.punch # real QA test starts here
@@ -37,6 +38,10 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch +# test that we have DMAPI support +_dmapi_scratch_mount +unmount $SCRATCH_MNT > /dev/null 2>&1 + # _test_punch args: blksize extsize_hint filesize "pp1 pp2 pp3" \ # "ps1 ps2 ps3" "pt1 pt2 pt3" "wp1 wp2" "ws1 ws2" \ # "w p p w p" resvsp
xfstests/176 +5 -0
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ _cleanup() # get standard environment, filters and checks . ./common.rc . ./common.filter +. ./common.dmapi . ./common.punch # real QA test starts here
@@ -35,6 +36,10 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch +# test that we have DMAPI support +_dmapi_scratch_mount +unmount $SCRATCH_MNT > /dev/null 2>&1 + # _test_punch args: blksize extsize_hint filesize "pp1 pp2 pp3" \ # "ps1 ps2 ps3" "pt1 pt2 pt3" "wp1 wp2" "ws1 ws2" \ # "w p p w p" resvsp
xfstests/177 +5 -0
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ _cleanup() # get standard environment, filters and checks . ./common.rc . ./common.filter +. ./common.dmapi # real QA test starts here
@@ -39,6 +40,10 @@ _require_scratch _scratch_mkfs_xfs >/dev/null 2>&1 \ || _fail "mkfs failed" +# test that we have DMAPI support +_dmapi_scratch_mount +unmount $SCRATCH_MNT > /dev/null 2>&1 + _scratch_mount \ || _fail "mount failed"
Hi,
_test_punch already does a umount $SCRATCH_MNT. However, IMHO, it would probably be nicer if one could use a _require_dmapi or really it may be simpler if we could roll it into common.dmapi
so one just needs to include common.dmapi and it would complain at that point if the kernel didn't support it.
--Tim
Quoted 79 lines · David Chinner
Don't run tests 175, 176 or 177 if dmapi is not supported by the underlying kernel.
Signed-off-by Dave Chinner <[email protected]>--- xfstests/175 | 5 +++++ xfstests/176 | 5 +++++ xfstests/177 | 5 +++++ 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+)Index: xfs-cmds/xfstests/175
===================================================================xfstests/175 +5
-0@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ _cleanup() # get standard environment, filters and checks . ./common.rc . ./common.filter +. ./common.dmapi . ./common.punch # real QA test starts here@@ -37,6 +38,10 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch +# test that we have DMAPI support +_dmapi_scratch_mount +unmount $SCRATCH_MNT > /dev/null 2>&1 + # _test_punch args: blksize extsize_hint filesize "pp1 pp2 pp3" \ # "ps1 ps2 ps3" "pt1 pt2 pt3" "wp1 wp2" "ws1 ws2" \ # "w p p w p" resvspIndex: xfs-cmds/xfstests/176
===================================================================xfstests/176 +5
-0@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ _cleanup() # get standard environment, filters and checks . ./common.rc . ./common.filter +. ./common.dmapi . ./common.punch # real QA test starts here@@ -35,6 +36,10 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch +# test that we have DMAPI support +_dmapi_scratch_mount +unmount $SCRATCH_MNT > /dev/null 2>&1 + # _test_punch args: blksize extsize_hint filesize "pp1 pp2 pp3" \ # "ps1 ps2 ps3" "pt1 pt2 pt3" "wp1 wp2" "ws1 ws2" \ # "w p p w p" resvspIndex: xfs-cmds/xfstests/177
===================================================================xfstests/177 +5
-0@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ _cleanup() # get standard environment, filters and checks . ./common.rc . ./common.filter +. ./common.dmapi # real QA test starts here@@ -39,6 +40,10 @@ _require_scratch _scratch_mkfs_xfs >/dev/null 2>&1 \ || _fail "mkfs failed" +# test that we have DMAPI support +_dmapi_scratch_mount +unmount $SCRATCH_MNT > /dev/null 2>&1 + _scratch_mount \ || _fail "mount failed"
Quoted 9 lines · Timothy Shimmin
Hi,
_test_punchalready does a umount $SCRATCH_MNT. However, IMHO, it would probably be nicer if one could use a_require_dmapior really it may be simpler if we could roll it into common.dmapi
so one just needs to include common.dmapi and it would complain at that point if the kernel didn't support it.
Sure, but we don't have that, and I'm not about to spend the time to convert >20 tests to something like this. Right now I just want to remove all the bloody silly test failures on mainline kernels.
All the other dmapi tests "not run" just fine, I want these to do the same thing. Is that good enough to check in right now?
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 3 lines
Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group
Quoted 15 lines · David Chinner
Quoted 9 lines · Timothy Shimmin
Hi,
_test_punchalready does a umount $SCRATCH_MNT. However, IMHO, it would probably be nicer if one could use a_require_dmapior really it may be simpler if we could roll it into common.dmapi
so one just needs to include common.dmapi and it would complain at that point if the kernel didn't support it.Sure, but we don't have that, and I'm not about to spend the time to convert >20 tests to something like this. Right now I just want to remove all the bloody silly test failures on mainline kernels.
Quoted 6 lines
All the other dmapi tests "not run" just fine, I want these to do the same thing. Is that good enough to check in right now?
Cheers,
Dave.
Sure, that's fine.
I was really just suggesting to put:
+# test that we have DMAPI support
+_dmapi_scratch_mount
+unmount $SCRATCH_MNT > /dev/null 2>&1
directly into common.dmapi - not as a function
but just as code to always execute.
As long as there is no output under normal circumstances from this, then all dmapi tests should not require any change and it is simpler (all they need is to include common.dmapi which most do).
There may be an extra mount in some of the
tests (for those that want to keep it mounted) but who cares. Why include common.dmapi if you don't require it to be supported :)
--Tim
Quoted 31 lines · Timothy Shimmin
Quoted 15 lines · David Chinner
Quoted 9 lines · Timothy Shimmin
Hi,
_test_punchalready does a umount $SCRATCH_MNT. However, IMHO, it would probably be nicer if one could use a_require_dmapior really it may be simpler if we could roll it into common.dmapi
so one just needs to include common.dmapi and it would complain at that point if the kernel didn't support it.Sure, but we don't have that, and I'm not about to spend the time to convert >20 tests to something like this. Right now I just want to remove all the bloody silly test failures on mainline kernels.
Quoted 6 lines
All the other dmapi tests "not run" just fine, I want these to do the same thing. Is that good enough to check in right now?
Cheers,
Dave.
Sure, that's fine.
I was really just suggesting to put:
xfstests/175 +3
-0+# test that we have DMAPI support +_dmapi_scratch_mount +unmount $SCRATCH_MNT > /dev/null 2>&1
Quoted 2 lines
directly into common.dmapi - not as a function
but just as code to always execute.
Ok, so i tried this and all the dmapi tests then gave "not run" status even though dmapi was build into the kernel.
Don't know why, don't really have time to find out right now.
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 3 lines
Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group