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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 BF41BC2BB1D for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:52:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A522071C for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:52:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="TOcEDD7v" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731377AbgCPNwr (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:52:47 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com ([209.85.166.68]:46896 "EHLO mail-io1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731258AbgCPNwq (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:52:46 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id v3so17143988iom.13; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:52:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=evLSLS3oddQ35jzc19igvW67YCvhCiGKly31HxckwHA=; b=TOcEDD7vGEcni3Wjmeqv+XWYdZyAZ9GbGZbjFmnBHqrG0w0LyKLMxJ4EeAoA2XHXof ICd+xdOkM8VigD0dG+dB9WbxGvOBKbxn6D+deu7GMtUvWCXwfhImyV489ocoXUas7gVU JK5N+tIiSyQBKYjUUYtvlMzHJNp+1dwWMbS/OwJbeL0B5M8AoHucaSNZkMll6KMdHOps rdJBlfO0sRcUdp5xfsnBpUj2JQxJd7OrbHX3D+RGqlNTRuJtfZRfwlkrZTsI9drTqijx nqyRZ1UvvDrEjVZrI76tG86mEChaUt3GKyyw5+fTeXK3bzKyjzQUENI0aGd7j6AJEjgU hiRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=evLSLS3oddQ35jzc19igvW67YCvhCiGKly31HxckwHA=; b=Pm3WDd+xYIprUZ6xr/PD8bvSyt7AFim0iG4UYwMEd8jxteo5ux4MtAc3RgN9to6G/U fGbhWBvkWpLhUeTw4zHvGBua+UuHuyhu+3n3xh/+wCtiW6G0D84nm7okUos3cD9XNrSs c6Y9uqujtuWFyo7MMfr03NUiK+r2jngsieQJgrwg27aHKEdy8fAgJMROPaB0MU/JPIVY e+9gZMLXG3rSMJkom24vQRY3myrtPsmzBDR11PoOiZRnUNo2lkZpezigja6U2NnLkSrm 04hSMv1NktgkAUDzpH/t6mNnDCqHa17dggJGlYdsDJKZ8g3+d6CvjtFWG6TFZJjCCL6D WauA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ18jtjEUelfutorBQu5qKi9q+hgC7BmoHWFIDW2tnEjF92qaG0/ o0Yte2Ub8UDquEdOmwAUAwKPlgoiw1qfh+bcCeY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtR2l0ZDYYb77SM1NS9sfP/ZVu3rzq8PkML8jp6gju/ZEUyhKhq3XRXGKDU9BDcEuEIgTJAL9aA9UVNjNfSIpw= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:980f:: with SMTP id a15mr23475578iol.203.1584366765680; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:52:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191230141423.31695-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <20191230141423.31695-5-amir73il@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Amir Goldstein Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:52:33 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] overlay: test constant ino with nested overlay over samefs lower To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: Eryu Guan , Jeff Layton , overlayfs , fstests Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:29 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 3:14 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > Also test that d_ino of readdir entries and i_ino from /proc/locks are > > consistent with st_ino and that inode numbers persist after rename to > > new parent, drop caches and mount cycle. > > overlay/070 and overlay/071 fail for me like this: > > QA output created by 071 > +flock: cannot open lock file > /scratch/ovl-mnt/lowertestdir/blkdev: No such device or address > ... > > I.e. there's no block dev with rdev=1/1. > > I don't see any other way to fix this, than to remove the device > tests. I ran into similar complain when I worked on generic/564. Apparently, this is not the first test that uses rdev b/1/1 and c/1/1 so not sure how those tests work for everyone. In generic/564 I used a loopdev as blockdev and /dev/zero as chardev. > Why are these needed? Is locking code in any way dependent on > file type? > Not strictly needed. See that they already skip file types fifo|socket|symlink. But note that we are not testing locking, we are using /proc/locks to get a peek at i_ino, so if we skip also blockdev and chardev, we end up testing no special files at all for i_ino consistency. Not the end of the world, but then again using loop dev and /dev/zero would be quite trivial as well. If it bothers you, I can post a fix. Thanks, Amir.