| Message ID | 20170716013058.r46jceccqmoedkde@thunk.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:30:58PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 04:51:03PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > Sorry I lost this thread, I thought I've replied but apparently I didn't.. > > > > I agreed with both of you and Darrick, I think we can try to repair the > > corrupted test fs, and if repair succeeds we can continue the test, and > > stop running the whole test if repair fails. > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. Things got busy and this > got dropped on my end. > > I've fixed the whitespace nits that you pointed out and am using _log_err. > > > I think we should try to fix other filesystems too? > > Hmm... yeah. The main reason why I hadn't was because xfs has > _scratch_xfs_repair and _scratch_xfs_check, which are very similar. > But _check_xfs_test_fs looks *very* different from _scratch_xfs_check, > and I'm not sure why. _check_xfs_filesystem is a helper that does all the checking that we can do to an xfs filesystem (online fsck, the old xfs_check, and the newer xfs_repair). AFAICT that's what all new xfstest code should be calling. xfs_check is obsolete. _check_xfs_test_fs calls _check_xfs_filesystem and then, weirdly, calls a nonexistent tool calld xfs_repair_ipaths to .... I assume fix all the problems that can crop with the Irix XFS parent pointer implementation. None of that exists on Linux and Irix is long dead, so I assume the "check for ipath consistency" can go away entirely. _scratch_xfs_check calls xfs_check directly, so I think it should get replaced with _check_scratch_fs, which calls _check_xfs_filesystem. <keep scrolling> > > So I've created a _repair_xfs_test_fs which is modelled after the > simpler _scratch_xfs_repair function, but I'm not 100% sure that is > correct. > > Anyways, WDYT? > > - Ted > > From 96a13cc22878ee5c016a606d76f8e9a6bd84eb20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> > Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:54:08 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] check: try to fix the test device if it gets corrupted > > If the test device gets corrupted all subsequent tests will fail. To > prevent this from causing all subsequent tests to be useless, try > repair the file system on TEST_DEV if possible. We don't need to do > this with the scratch device since that file system gets recreated > each time anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> > --- > check | 7 ++++++- > common/rc | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > common/xfs | 12 ++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/check b/check > index f8db3cd6..d89d2e91 100755 > --- a/check > +++ b/check > @@ -476,7 +476,12 @@ _summary() > _check_filesystems() > { > if [ -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_test ]; then > - _check_test_fs || err=true > + if ! _check_test_fs ; then > + err=true > + echo "Trying to repair broken TEST_DEV file system" > + _repair_test_fs > + _test_mount > + fi > rm -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_test* > fi > if [ -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_scratch ]; then > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > index 328b6b07..d37a1611 100644 > --- a/common/rc > +++ b/common/rc > @@ -1201,6 +1201,47 @@ _repair_scratch_fs() > esac > } > > +_repair_test_fs() > +{ > + case $FSTYP in > + xfs) > + _repair_xfs_test_fs "$@" >$tmp.repair 2>&1 > + res=$? > + if [ "$res" -ne 0 ]; then > + echo "xfs_repair returns $res; replay log?" >>$tmp.repair > + _test_mount > + res=$? > + if [ $res -gt 0 ]; then > + echo "mount returns $res; zap log?" >>$tmp.repair > + _xfs_repair_test_fs -L >>$tmp.repair 2>&1 > + echo "log zap returns $?" >> $tmp.repair > + else > + umount "$TEST_DEV" > + fi > + _xfs_repair_test_fs "$@" >>$tmp.repair 2>&1 > + res=$? > + fi Structurally this all looks ok, but it's a little weird that we have _scratch_xfs_repair for the scratch device (object-verb) but _repair_test_fs (verb-object) for the test device. --D > + ;; > + *) > + # Let's hope fsck -y suffices... > + fsck -t $FSTYP -fy $TEST_DEV >$tmp.repair 2>&1 > + res=$? > + if test "$res" -lt 4 ; then > + res=0 > + fi > + ;; > + esac > + if [ $res -ne 0 ]; then > + _log_err "_repair_test_fs: failed, err=$res" > + echo "*** fsck.$FSTYP output ***" >>$seqres.full > + cat $tmp.repair >>$seqres.full > + echo "*** end fsck.$FSTYP output" >>$seqres.full > + > + fi > + rm -f $tmp.repair > + return $res > +} > + > _get_pids_by_name() > { > if [ $# -ne 1 ] > diff --git a/common/xfs b/common/xfs > index a1ee3847..c8f4e46b 100644 > --- a/common/xfs > +++ b/common/xfs > @@ -443,6 +443,18 @@ _check_xfs_test_fs() > fi > } > > +# modeled after _scratch_xfs_repair > +_repair_xfs_test_fs() > +{ > + TEST_OPTIONS="" > + [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" = yes -a ! -z "$TEST_LOGDEV" ] && \ > + TEST_OPTIONS="-l$TEST_LOGDEV" > + [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" = yes -a ! -z "$TEST_RTDEV" ] && \ > + TEST_OPTIONS=$TEST_OPTIONS" -r$TEST_RTDEV" > + [ "$LARGE_TEST_DEV" = yes ] && TEST_OPTIONS=$TEST_OPTIONS" -t" > + $XFS_REPAIR_PROG $TEST_OPTIONS $* $TEST_DEV > +} > + > _require_xfs_test_rmapbt() > { > _require_test > -- > 2.11.0.rc0.7.gbe5a750 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:45:08PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:30:58PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 04:51:03PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > > > Sorry I lost this thread, I thought I've replied but apparently I didn't.. > > > > > > I agreed with both of you and Darrick, I think we can try to repair the > > > corrupted test fs, and if repair succeeds we can continue the test, and > > > stop running the whole test if repair fails. > > > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. Things got busy and this > > got dropped on my end. > > > > I've fixed the whitespace nits that you pointed out and am using _log_err. > > > > > I think we should try to fix other filesystems too? > > > > Hmm... yeah. The main reason why I hadn't was because xfs has > > _scratch_xfs_repair and _scratch_xfs_check, which are very similar. > > But _check_xfs_test_fs looks *very* different from _scratch_xfs_check, > > and I'm not sure why. > > _check_xfs_filesystem is a helper that does all the checking that we can > do to an xfs filesystem (online fsck, the old xfs_check, and the newer > xfs_repair). AFAICT that's what all new xfstest code should be calling. > xfs_check is obsolete. Agreed. > > _check_xfs_test_fs calls _check_xfs_filesystem and then, weirdly, calls > a nonexistent tool calld xfs_repair_ipaths to .... I assume fix all the > problems that can crop with the Irix XFS parent pointer implementation. > None of that exists on Linux and Irix is long dead, so I assume the > "check for ipath consistency" can go away entirely. Agreed. > > _scratch_xfs_check calls xfs_check directly, so I think it should get > replaced with _check_scratch_fs, which calls _check_xfs_filesystem. Agreed again :) > > <keep scrolling> > > > > > So I've created a _repair_xfs_test_fs which is modelled after the > > simpler _scratch_xfs_repair function, but I'm not 100% sure that is > > correct. > > > > Anyways, WDYT? > > > > - Ted > > > > From 96a13cc22878ee5c016a606d76f8e9a6bd84eb20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> > > Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:54:08 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] check: try to fix the test device if it gets corrupted > > > > If the test device gets corrupted all subsequent tests will fail. To > > prevent this from causing all subsequent tests to be useless, try > > repair the file system on TEST_DEV if possible. We don't need to do > > this with the scratch device since that file system gets recreated > > each time anyway. > > > > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> > > --- > > check | 7 ++++++- > > common/rc | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > common/xfs | 12 ++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/check b/check > > index f8db3cd6..d89d2e91 100755 > > --- a/check > > +++ b/check > > @@ -476,7 +476,12 @@ _summary() > > _check_filesystems() > > { > > if [ -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_test ]; then > > - _check_test_fs || err=true > > + if ! _check_test_fs ; then > > + err=true > > + echo "Trying to repair broken TEST_DEV file system" > > + _repair_test_fs Should we stop running if _repair_test_fs failed to fix TEST_DEV? I think that was what Darrick first suggested. And I think unfixable errors will cause subsequent tests to fail too. > > + _test_mount > > + fi > > rm -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_test* > > fi > > if [ -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_scratch ]; then > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > index 328b6b07..d37a1611 100644 > > --- a/common/rc > > +++ b/common/rc > > @@ -1201,6 +1201,47 @@ _repair_scratch_fs() > > esac > > } > > > > +_repair_test_fs() > > +{ > > + case $FSTYP in > > + xfs) > > + _repair_xfs_test_fs "$@" >$tmp.repair 2>&1 > > + res=$? Better to declare res as a local variable. I know this was copied from _repair_scratch_fs, but better to get it improved in new code :) > > + if [ "$res" -ne 0 ]; then > > + echo "xfs_repair returns $res; replay log?" >>$tmp.repair > > + _test_mount > > + res=$? > > + if [ $res -gt 0 ]; then > > + echo "mount returns $res; zap log?" >>$tmp.repair > > + _xfs_repair_test_fs -L >>$tmp.repair 2>&1 meant _repair_xfs_test_fs here? > > + echo "log zap returns $?" >> $tmp.repair > > + else > > + umount "$TEST_DEV" > > + fi > > + _xfs_repair_test_fs "$@" >>$tmp.repair 2>&1 same here, _repair_xfs_test_fs is what really being added in common/xfs. (Though I'd like to rename it, see below.) > > + res=$? > > + fi > > Structurally this all looks ok, but it's a little weird that we have > _scratch_xfs_repair for the scratch device (object-verb) but > _repair_test_fs (verb-object) for the test device. My best guess is that _repair_scratch_fs and _repair_test_fs are helpers in a higher level, and are defined in common/rc, they deal with all filesystem types. _scratch_xfs_repair is xfs specific, and defined in common/xfs, it only deals with xfs. So the naming schema is different but they are also in different "namespace"s, which looks fine to me :) > > --D > > > + ;; > > + *) > > + # Let's hope fsck -y suffices... > > + fsck -t $FSTYP -fy $TEST_DEV >$tmp.repair 2>&1 > > + res=$? > > + if test "$res" -lt 4 ; then > > + res=0 > > + fi > > + ;; > > + esac > > + if [ $res -ne 0 ]; then > > + _log_err "_repair_test_fs: failed, err=$res" > > + echo "*** fsck.$FSTYP output ***" >>$seqres.full > > + cat $tmp.repair >>$seqres.full > > + echo "*** end fsck.$FSTYP output" >>$seqres.full > > + > > + fi > > + rm -f $tmp.repair > > + return $res > > +} > > + > > _get_pids_by_name() > > { > > if [ $# -ne 1 ] > > diff --git a/common/xfs b/common/xfs > > index a1ee3847..c8f4e46b 100644 > > --- a/common/xfs > > +++ b/common/xfs > > @@ -443,6 +443,18 @@ _check_xfs_test_fs() > > fi > > } > > > > +# modeled after _scratch_xfs_repair > > +_repair_xfs_test_fs() Like I mentioned above, this helper is meant to pair with _scratch_xfs_repair, so following the same naming schema, rename it to _test_xfs_repair? Like the _test_xfs_logprint and _scratch_xfs_logprint pair. Thanks, Eryu > > +{ > > + TEST_OPTIONS="" > > + [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" = yes -a ! -z "$TEST_LOGDEV" ] && \ > > + TEST_OPTIONS="-l$TEST_LOGDEV" > > + [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" = yes -a ! -z "$TEST_RTDEV" ] && \ > > + TEST_OPTIONS=$TEST_OPTIONS" -r$TEST_RTDEV" > > + [ "$LARGE_TEST_DEV" = yes ] && TEST_OPTIONS=$TEST_OPTIONS" -t" > > + $XFS_REPAIR_PROG $TEST_OPTIONS $* $TEST_DEV > > +} > > + > > _require_xfs_test_rmapbt() > > { > > _require_test > > -- > > 2.11.0.rc0.7.gbe5a750 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:05:07PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > if [ -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_test ]; then > > > - _check_test_fs || err=true > > > + if ! _check_test_fs ; then > > > + err=true > > > + echo "Trying to repair broken TEST_DEV file system" > > > + _repair_test_fs > > Should we stop running if _repair_test_fs failed to fix TEST_DEV? I > think that was what Darrick first suggested. And I think unfixable > errors will cause subsequent tests to fail too. Seems reasonable to me. I'll take a look at it. > > > +_repair_test_fs() > > > +{ > > > + case $FSTYP in > > > + xfs) > > > + _repair_xfs_test_fs "$@" >$tmp.repair 2>&1 > > > + res=$? > > Better to declare res as a local variable. I know this was copied from > _repair_scratch_fs, but better to get it improved in new code :) Ack. > > Structurally this all looks ok, but it's a little weird that we have > > _scratch_xfs_repair for the scratch device (object-verb) but > > _repair_test_fs (verb-object) for the test device. > > My best guess is that _repair_scratch_fs and _repair_test_fs are helpers > in a higher level, and are defined in common/rc, they deal with all > filesystem types. > > _scratch_xfs_repair is xfs specific, and defined in common/xfs, it only > deals with xfs. So the naming schema is different but they are also in > different "namespace"s, which looks fine to me :) I also didn't like _test_repair_fs because it's not clear whether "test" is a verb or a noun. So one thing we could do is _xfs_scratch_repair and _xfs_test_repair? The other thing is how much of the cleanup in common/xfs should be segregated into a separate commit (and I'm not sure how competent I'm going to be ate doing that cleanup, but I'm willing to give it a go). - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:30:09PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:05:07PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > if [ -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_test ]; then > > > > - _check_test_fs || err=true > > > > + if ! _check_test_fs ; then > > > > + err=true > > > > + echo "Trying to repair broken TEST_DEV file system" > > > > + _repair_test_fs > > > > Should we stop running if _repair_test_fs failed to fix TEST_DEV? I > > think that was what Darrick first suggested. And I think unfixable > > errors will cause subsequent tests to fail too. > > Seems reasonable to me. I'll take a look at it. > > > > > +_repair_test_fs() > > > > +{ > > > > + case $FSTYP in > > > > + xfs) > > > > + _repair_xfs_test_fs "$@" >$tmp.repair 2>&1 > > > > + res=$? > > > > Better to declare res as a local variable. I know this was copied from > > _repair_scratch_fs, but better to get it improved in new code :) > > Ack. > > > > Structurally this all looks ok, but it's a little weird that we have > > > _scratch_xfs_repair for the scratch device (object-verb) but > > > _repair_test_fs (verb-object) for the test device. > > > > My best guess is that _repair_scratch_fs and _repair_test_fs are helpers > > in a higher level, and are defined in common/rc, they deal with all > > filesystem types. > > > > _scratch_xfs_repair is xfs specific, and defined in common/xfs, it only > > deals with xfs. So the naming schema is different but they are also in > > different "namespace"s, which looks fine to me :) > > I also didn't like _test_repair_fs because it's not clear whether > "test" is a verb or a noun. > > So one thing we could do is _xfs_scratch_repair and _xfs_test_repair? Then all existing _scratch_xfs_repair calls need a rename, but I'm fine with the rename. > > The other thing is how much of the cleanup in common/xfs should be > segregated into a separate commit (and I'm not sure how competent I'm > going to be ate doing that cleanup, but I'm willing to give it a go). I think we can do minimal cleanup in this patch (like the rename of _scratch_xfs_repair to _xfs_scratch_repair) and do other cleanups in separate commits (if there's still any). Thanks! Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:40:47PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > So one thing we could do is _xfs_scratch_repair and _xfs_test_repair? Hmm, or maybe _xfs_repair_scratch and _xfs_repair_test; since at least for English speakers verb-object is probably more natural. But if you or Darrick have a strong preference I'm don't care that much. > Then all existing _scratch_xfs_repair calls need a rename, but I'm fine > with the rename. > > > > > The other thing is how much of the cleanup in common/xfs should be > > segregated into a separate commit (and I'm not sure how competent I'm > > going to be ate doing that cleanup, but I'm willing to give it a go). > > I think we can do minimal cleanup in this patch (like the rename of > _scratch_xfs_repair to _xfs_scratch_repair) and do other cleanups in > separate commits (if there's still any). If you don't mind I'll do the renames as a separate commit since that's much easier to verify/review. Cheers, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:53:01AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:40:47PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > > > So one thing we could do is _xfs_scratch_repair and _xfs_test_repair? > > Hmm, or maybe _xfs_repair_scratch and _xfs_repair_test; since at least > for English speakers verb-object is probably more natural. But if you > or Darrick have a strong preference I'm don't care that much. I'm not native English speaker, you (and other native English speakers) decide :) > > > Then all existing _scratch_xfs_repair calls need a rename, but I'm fine > > with the rename. > > > > > > > > The other thing is how much of the cleanup in common/xfs should be > > > segregated into a separate commit (and I'm not sure how competent I'm > > > going to be ate doing that cleanup, but I'm willing to give it a go). > > > > I think we can do minimal cleanup in this patch (like the rename of > > _scratch_xfs_repair to _xfs_scratch_repair) and do other cleanups in > > separate commits (if there's still any). > > If you don't mind I'll do the renames as a separate commit since > that's much easier to verify/review. Sure, make sense to me. Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:02:29PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:53:01AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:40:47PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > > > > > So one thing we could do is _xfs_scratch_repair and _xfs_test_repair? > > > > Hmm, or maybe _xfs_repair_scratch and _xfs_repair_test; since at least > > for English speakers verb-object is probably more natural. But if you > > or Darrick have a strong preference I'm don't care that much. > > I'm not native English speaker, you (and other native English speakers) > decide :) TBH I wish we'd call them scratchdev and testdev, e.g. _xfs_repair_scratchdev _xfs_repair_testdev So that it's plainly obvious that we're talking about a device and not the verbs scratch or test. I guess you could also argue that we're really repairing a filesystem on the device and that it should be _xfs_repair_testfs... --D > > > > > > Then all existing _scratch_xfs_repair calls need a rename, but I'm fine > > > with the rename. > > > > > > > > > > > The other thing is how much of the cleanup in common/xfs should be > > > > segregated into a separate commit (and I'm not sure how competent I'm > > > > going to be ate doing that cleanup, but I'm willing to give it a go). > > > > > > I think we can do minimal cleanup in this patch (like the rename of > > > _scratch_xfs_repair to _xfs_scratch_repair) and do other cleanups in > > > separate commits (if there's still any). > > > > If you don't mind I'll do the renames as a separate commit since > > that's much easier to verify/review. > > Sure, make sense to me. > > Thanks, > Eryu > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/check b/check index f8db3cd6..d89d2e91 100755 --- a/check +++ b/check @@ -476,7 +476,12 @@ _summary() _check_filesystems() { if [ -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_test ]; then - _check_test_fs || err=true + if ! _check_test_fs ; then + err=true + echo "Trying to repair broken TEST_DEV file system" + _repair_test_fs + _test_mount + fi rm -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_test* fi if [ -f ${RESULT_DIR}/require_scratch ]; then diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc index 328b6b07..d37a1611 100644 --- a/common/rc +++ b/common/rc @@ -1201,6 +1201,47 @@ _repair_scratch_fs() esac } +_repair_test_fs() +{ + case $FSTYP in + xfs) + _repair_xfs_test_fs "$@" >$tmp.repair 2>&1 + res=$? + if [ "$res" -ne 0 ]; then + echo "xfs_repair returns $res; replay log?" >>$tmp.repair + _test_mount + res=$? + if [ $res -gt 0 ]; then + echo "mount returns $res; zap log?" >>$tmp.repair + _xfs_repair_test_fs -L >>$tmp.repair 2>&1 + echo "log zap returns $?" >> $tmp.repair + else + umount "$TEST_DEV" + fi + _xfs_repair_test_fs "$@" >>$tmp.repair 2>&1 + res=$? + fi + ;; + *) + # Let's hope fsck -y suffices... + fsck -t $FSTYP -fy $TEST_DEV >$tmp.repair 2>&1 + res=$? + if test "$res" -lt 4 ; then + res=0 + fi + ;; + esac + if [ $res -ne 0 ]; then + _log_err "_repair_test_fs: failed, err=$res" + echo "*** fsck.$FSTYP output ***" >>$seqres.full + cat $tmp.repair >>$seqres.full + echo "*** end fsck.$FSTYP output" >>$seqres.full + + fi + rm -f $tmp.repair + return $res +} + _get_pids_by_name() { if [ $# -ne 1 ] diff --git a/common/xfs b/common/xfs index a1ee3847..c8f4e46b 100644 --- a/common/xfs +++ b/common/xfs @@ -443,6 +443,18 @@ _check_xfs_test_fs() fi } +# modeled after _scratch_xfs_repair +_repair_xfs_test_fs() +{ + TEST_OPTIONS="" + [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" = yes -a ! -z "$TEST_LOGDEV" ] && \ + TEST_OPTIONS="-l$TEST_LOGDEV" + [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" = yes -a ! -z "$TEST_RTDEV" ] && \ + TEST_OPTIONS=$TEST_OPTIONS" -r$TEST_RTDEV" + [ "$LARGE_TEST_DEV" = yes ] && TEST_OPTIONS=$TEST_OPTIONS" -t" + $XFS_REPAIR_PROG $TEST_OPTIONS $* $TEST_DEV +} + _require_xfs_test_rmapbt() { _require_test