From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62AEC43217 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 02:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03946113C for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 02:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1347339AbhIHC7W (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2021 22:59:22 -0400 Received: from esa6.hgst.iphmx.com ([216.71.154.45]:45567 "EHLO esa6.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1347363AbhIHC7V (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2021 22:59:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wdc.com; i=@wdc.com; q=dns/txt; s=dkim.wdc.com; t=1631069895; x=1662605895; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=7vhGYXLmmOkphcwVUQ3th+RypI6+GEuS/FofoMfxCKw=; b=PJjRlgv2yAJcFnRczuxgc1U5in0cNQnLnuyGa8TXqQgsmW0JdMxCPgyI DOoNmBhlZDE38FjFnEn1/j0e2D46Rmb8IsQjijNeI125NLMvwqpX0zcUB EYH3q6zaaD0yVbcygmsxVr1D47wCRCdxn2j7O7+vExkKXscGKAverInDh r3BSUpmGqq2b+nVQX3gxOjaU3Mw9fE5GRUftNvxi57XHf2dKFy3SaWqYB 0/JhTlz0ozo2ZJ3ISGaYvyVuQmMXzbrxUSxy2S5h65prJTaydpkbpT7uW DJtxHxSb/lmaB54TnAKOI/sAaf1Sq7jNgZkKFCmYwIN9KWfyeGxfj8sbs w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,276,1624291200"; d="scan'208";a="179963561" Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.15]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 08 Sep 2021 10:57:44 +0800 IronPort-SDR: oapgX5QzD/hWYp7boZ90J6ch9Q7jw7tQmSHOnvcmTHE7kh6MpImwVl6EEYYA4Fj13yQwfSmIYo hzwwXxP6gBuVg0MEDh8twJQv2obMGHvkcg9mXBhiWjYpjuKEO8imr84MfuQH+m75AHraSG9rDz V2Q78Iyqa3T6iRYpHDXkKfBE1exRqHDcCYuydmOmzM9ccBAr7DdatTAzDwvXNYk8S4h5dq4ZZl aA8c6oQak0YqcoPRSOnfT9XFjaZPWOa54ndT2ngU4tG6cs0vSPIVpOt8ZOtljlxWB/5SoH9Wmg d+Q+vI58ZbSy7VoKdF8qUFwV Received: from uls-op-cesaip01.wdc.com ([10.248.3.36]) by uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Sep 2021 19:32:42 -0700 IronPort-SDR: EMiM7xwSC5G0k1baresuzpQhYJ7Sx1zEN6TIH35sFxKfcUCYd5w0SNTkFgQ016EgRlS/T6oyGT 9BDUbIr1ZbXkhxmivtbXzPsgVFFtrxbDy/F9y4Ytb9Fj8jlNiGNOgYZBkPrqXKkzY3g5SSqpiH iUSBQmuf6bRPyak3vwt1i4dhZb0h5aou2a01QsY0u7HqKafjKkf1HdK/uQZF/Yv6Q6fdtUgcG+ S2EHvvTkReTQbb70/3H0iBKwJ/o5z3EkSjM1nNskyojPxNvsOkVySbg4hJTGlHTNBWJPPXuQBu L4k= WDCIronportException: Internal Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([10.3.10.180]) by uls-op-cesaip01.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Sep 2021 19:57:43 -0700 Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com [127.0.0.1]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4H46J73yrVz1RvlY for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 19:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=opensource.wdc.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d= opensource.wdc.com; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:to:from :date; s=dkim; t=1631069862; x=1633661863; bh=7vhGYXLmmOkphcwVUQ 3th+RypI6+GEuS/FofoMfxCKw=; b=HfkicWaedRy6y1QFZTF/KQnyQVFBoeTW7q cWxiOqOxqLJP3YH1GGPI93O90K5vZjpT6snITakLGK2SrcjYA+atUJ8DF6gYC9wR OyYQNWPVE1gz/u5RpyEkHgMZkRBFvGwToDTg2/ePZ+xtZXAN6SSipJPcq0qJTYbp 7o1XBwh1mqc1koUIP/CHKivlYdDTmXbe+UR7aTfKFsaVxDmL+1wxRB/K7glC7AFJ 4ipZpLNnrO7Gk2gm5O6b67VT/Npt6McYmAn8FAfcD2y0A5mLcq35oAiNzPu8fRej sW61OOKVoMxJmt5pgron5IaqYjQBY8DnCShDOJJ7JacmmtuaU7Mw== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([127.0.0.1]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id f--gnfR7UGIz for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 19:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shindev (shindev.dhcp.fujisawa.hgst.com [10.149.52.173]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4H46J56YFqz1RvlR; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 19:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:57:39 +0900 From: Shin'ichiro Kawasaki To: Dave Chinner Cc: Shinichiro Kawasaki , "fstests@vger.kernel.org" , Naohiro Aota , Johannes Thumshirn , Damien Le Moal Subject: Re: [PATCH] common/rc: Check SCRATCH_DEV in _require_dm_target() Message-ID: <20210908025739.chiuor5dzn5icdku@shindev> References: <20210907074116.1799114-1-shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com> <20210907081556.GE1756565@dread.disaster.area> <20210907092843.ludgrxfo34xud3ue@shindev> <20210907103632.GF1756565@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210907103632.GF1756565@dread.disaster.area> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On Sep 07, 2021 / 20:36, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 09:28:44AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote: > > On Sep 07, 2021 / 18:15, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 04:41:16PM +0900, Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote: > > > > When SCRATCH_DEV is not set and the test case does not call > > > > _require_scratch*() before _require_dm_target(), _require_block_device() > > > > > > That is the bug that needs fixing. > > > > Thanks for the comment. Do you mean the test cases (generic/628 and generic/629) > > need fix to call _require_scratch*() before _require_dm_target()? I think that > > Yes. > > Indeed, generic/628 does: > > _require_dm_target error > _require_scratch_reflink > > and g629 does: > > _supported_fs generic > _require_dm_target error > _require_xfs_io_command "chattr" "s" > _require_xfs_io_command "copy_range" > _require_scratch > > i.e. these two cases are just incorrectly ordered require rules. > > Oh, and a quick check of all the dm_target tests: > > $ git grep -l _require_dm_target tests/ > t.t > $ git grep -l _require_scratch `cat t.t` > t.tt > $ diff -u t.t t.tt > $ > > Every test that has require_dm_target rule also has a > _require_scratch rule in it somewhere... Thanks for the clarification. I will repost a patch to fix the order of _require_scratch* and _require_dm_target in generic/{628,629}. Regarding the future test cases, I think we can improve error check and error message in _require_dm_target. I will post another patch for it. Comment on it will be appreciated also. -- Best Regards, Shin'ichiro Kawasaki