From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
autofs mailing list <autofs@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] vfs - change d_manage() to take a struct path
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:47:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1477536470.2898.12.camel@themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161027021111.GI19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 03:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 07:39:36AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe Al has been too busy to comment, he has been on the Cc from the start.
> That's... a very mild version of what's been going on. Let's just say that
> the last few weeks had been really interesting. Not that the shit has
> settled, but there was some slackening in the shitstorm last few days.
> Unlikely to last, I'm afraid, but...
>
> >
> > Hopefully this email will prompt a review, Al?
> Aside of the Eric's note re constifying struct path (strongly seconded),
> I'm not sure if expiration-related side of that is correct. OTOH,
> since the expiration happens from userland...
Sure, I have a follow up series to do the constifying as recommended by Eric and
now yourself.
>
> How much testing did it get? I've several test setups involving
> autofs, but they are nowhere near exhaustive and I don't have good
> enough feel of the codebase to slap together something with decent
> coverage...
It got my standard testing.
For that I use a modified version of the autofs Connectathon system.
It's more about testing a wide variety of syntax and map setups and so exercises
a large number of different types of autofs mounts.
It's meant to check normal operation but not so much stress testing even though
it does perform quite a few mounts (around 250-300, not to mention the autofs
mounts themselves).
I have another standard test I call the submount-test and it was originally done
to stress test the most common problem I see, concurrent expire to mount.
I didn't see any problems I couldn't explain in these but I might need to re-
visit the submount-test to see if it is still doing what I want.
OTOH, the pattern of mount and umount I see when the submount-test is run does
look like it is doing what I want but it might not be getting all the way to the
top of the tree of mounts enough times over the course of the test.
So I'm happy with my testing, just not as happy as I could be.
Ian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
autofs mailing list <autofs@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] vfs - change d_manage() to take a struct path
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:47:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1477536470.2898.12.camel@themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161027021111.GI19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 03:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 07:39:36AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe Al has been too busy to comment, he has been on the Cc from the start.
> That's... a very mild version of what's been going on. Let's just say that
> the last few weeks had been really interesting. Not that the shit has
> settled, but there was some slackening in the shitstorm last few days.
> Unlikely to last, I'm afraid, but...
>
> >
> > Hopefully this email will prompt a review, Al?
> Aside of the Eric's note re constifying struct path (strongly seconded),
> I'm not sure if expiration-related side of that is correct. OTOH,
> since the expiration happens from userland...
Sure, I have a follow up series to do the constifying as recommended by Eric and
now yourself.
>
> How much testing did it get? I've several test setups involving
> autofs, but they are nowhere near exhaustive and I don't have good
> enough feel of the codebase to slap together something with decent
> coverage...
It got my standard testing.
For that I use a modified version of the autofs Connectathon system.
It's more about testing a wide variety of syntax and map setups and so exercises
a large number of different types of autofs mounts.
It's meant to check normal operation but not so much stress testing even though
it does perform quite a few mounts (around 250-300, not to mention the autofs
mounts themselves).
I have another standard test I call the submount-test and it was originally done
to stress test the most common problem I see, concurrent expire to mount.
I didn't see any problems I couldn't explain in these but I might need to re-
visit the submount-test to see if it is still doing what I want.
OTOH, the pattern of mount and umount I see when the submount-test is run does
look like it is doing what I want but it might not be getting all the way to the
top of the tree of mounts enough times over the course of the test.
So I'm happy with my testing, just not as happy as I could be.
Ian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-27 2:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-11 5:33 [PATCH 1/8] vfs - change d_manage() to take a struct path Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:33 ` [PATCH 2/8] vfs - add path_is_mountpoint() helper Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` [PATCH 3/8] vfs - add path_has_submounts() Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` [PATCH 4/8] autofs - change autofs4_expire_wait() to take struct path Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` [PATCH 5/8] autofs - change autofs4_wait() " Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` [PATCH 6/8] autofs - use path_is_mountpoint() to fix unreliable d_mountpoint() checks Ian Kent
2016-10-27 2:17 ` Al Viro
2016-10-27 2:51 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-27 2:51 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` [PATCH 7/8] autofs - use path_has_submounts() to fix unreliable have_submount() checks Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` [PATCH 8/8] vfs - remove unused have_submounts() function Ian Kent
2016-10-11 5:34 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-11 16:04 ` [PATCH 1/8] vfs - change d_manage() to take a struct path Eric W. Biederman
2016-10-11 16:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2016-10-11 23:47 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-11 23:47 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-19 19:40 ` Andrew Morton
2016-10-20 23:39 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-20 23:39 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-27 2:11 ` Al Viro
2016-10-27 2:11 ` Al Viro
2016-10-27 2:47 ` Ian Kent [this message]
2016-10-27 2:47 ` Ian Kent
2016-10-27 6:50 ` Ian Kent
2016-11-01 2:02 ` Ian Kent
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1477536470.2898.12.camel@themaw.net \
--to=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=autofs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=osandov@osandov.com \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.