Re: [PATCH 1/3] Initial bcachefs support

From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
To: Eryu Guan <eguan@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Eryu Guan <guan@eryu.me>,
	fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org,
	Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Initial bcachefs support
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 00:04:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YKsl0ORHo/mhuUBx@moria.home.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210524035604.GD60846@e18g06458.et15sqa>

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:56:04AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 06:51:49PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> > > >  	;;
> > > > @@ -1179,6 +1197,19 @@ _repair_scratch_fs()
> > > >  	fi
> > > >  	return $res
> > > >          ;;
> > > > +    bcachefs)
> > > > +	fsck -t $FSTYP -n $SCRATCH_DEV 2>&1
> > > 
> > > _repair_scratch_fs() is supposed to actually fix the errors, does
> > > "fsck -n" fix errors for bcachefs?
> > 
> > No - but with bcachefs fsck finding errors _always_ indicates a bug, so for the
> > purposes of these tests I think this is the right thing to do - I don't want the
> > tests to pass if fsck is finding and fixing errors.
> 
> Then _check_scratch_fs() should be used instead, which will fail the
> test if any fsck finds any corruptions. _repair_scratch_fs() is meant to
> fix errors, and only report failure when there's unfixable errors.

I see no reason to make such a change to generic tests that were written for
other filesystems, when this gets me exactly what I want.