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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 8F77AC0044D for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:01:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6414A20575 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:01:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=szeredi.hu header.i=@szeredi.hu header.b="cH0GpFi3" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731401AbgCPOBR (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:01:17 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com ([209.85.166.68]:37178 "EHLO mail-io1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731331AbgCPOBQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:01:16 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id k4so17252569ior.4 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 07:01:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=szeredi.hu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vGFrbL84qNZ1K2nsUs/vYKrsSu89jm2YKljwoZKFFeg=; b=cH0GpFi34twJL1JB6pfLn9hJck2UemFugAB6qp/6Q33NJt835WeS5KO29SQxX8dldH AGqIJf8GyGlmuNwUzBBSQCrp14X0S7oPkooHXYGaoVy5iqJ3yfs9xJCyeA0+twHTQWkx f358UhMAt1rXyJHKlkhXvGF5vAr4unJGs0m5Y= 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=vGFrbL84qNZ1K2nsUs/vYKrsSu89jm2YKljwoZKFFeg=; b=f5R1teRvdQH0Mia++hu15mfBCfV2CfDYLLzJQlQMZcNmlZnANyAzACf/WU3iYdHqKn w6cJTPUE+XKcs+R/8QNISXX97A8AGOpolGhCt4M56QAZpY7/4f0cVaY6n1j6LOflHLcP gigfTWLZWKalBA8uzt74ErdoRume5xDJXu/6QM6Io6IMbOWwK3klTRHFbQHxq1IXDm/a zX22gdhkC/Yo1rqIs/YDpz7t8Gu5GANiDQP8A9v/Yq/p7B7p58Yt92FbaiovzNPk9dTp Bxc5foI8fSBU7koCSfqO8x5Zkw7ZLtMxONj9M3nwvbmT4me+DLXrwNYEzVIiUZSUH95B MqtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3oSbi4BQuhnHbSq368zyyKZXdZqItj9GKSdcY+h5JHpPbgSfdz gPQKNhxpgOMiE9tfz91DrReBxDePbo1WbCAlx7ymWw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuYjhHSXepOJpDT4joP8mHHjOPqbOr/hOLLWkFnKDmhDakXpU11BzwCeNQtZ39NKC9bQh4vwwzcIXj2ZxbOy6E= X-Received: by 2002:a02:6658:: with SMTP id l24mr23883jaf.33.1584367275851; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 07:01:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191230141423.31695-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <20191230141423.31695-5-amir73il@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:01:04 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] overlay: test constant ino with nested overlay over samefs lower To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Eryu Guan , Jeff Layton , overlayfs , fstests Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-unionfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:52 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > 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. Using /dev/loop and /dev/zero sounds good. Thanks, Miklos