| Message ID | 20191223051622.7975-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | generic/402: Make timestamp range check conditional | expand |
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 7:16 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> wrote: > > Addition of fs-specific timestamp range checking was added > in 188d20bcd1eb ("vfs: Add file timestamp range support"). > > Add a check for whether the kernel supports the limits check > before running the associated test. > > Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> > --- > common/rc | 11 +++++++++++ > tests/generic/402 | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > index 816588d6..472db995 100644 > --- a/common/rc > +++ b/common/rc > @@ -1981,6 +1981,17 @@ _run_aiodio() > return $status > } > > +_require_kernel_timestamp_range() > +{ > + # 128-byte inodes do not have room for extended timestamp > + MKFS_OPTIONS=-I128 _scratch_mkfs_ext4 &>> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "ext4 mkfs failed" > + > + mount -t ext4 ${SCRATCH_DEV} ${SCRATCH_MNT} > + _check_dmesg_for "ext4 filesystem being mounted at ${SCRATCH_MNT} supports timestamps until 2038" || \ > + _notrun "Kernel does not support timestamp limits" > + umount ${SCRATCH_MNT} > +} > + Deepa, Thank you for following up. I am not sure if mkfs.ext4 of scratch partition in a generic test is going to be very popular - let's see what others have to say. You can certainly now do that without checking that ${SCRATCH_DEV} is a blockdev which is not the case for overlay and networking filesystems. Why did you choose not to use a loop mounted ext2 for the check as I suggested? You can use _require_loop() and _require_ext2() inside the check. In any case, please also check for failure to mount. Thanks, Amir.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 10:36 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 7:16 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Addition of fs-specific timestamp range checking was added > > in 188d20bcd1eb ("vfs: Add file timestamp range support"). > > > > Add a check for whether the kernel supports the limits check > > before running the associated test. > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> > > --- > > common/rc | 11 +++++++++++ > > tests/generic/402 | 3 +++ > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > index 816588d6..472db995 100644 > > --- a/common/rc > > +++ b/common/rc > > @@ -1981,6 +1981,17 @@ _run_aiodio() > > return $status > > } > > > > +_require_kernel_timestamp_range() > > +{ > > + # 128-byte inodes do not have room for extended timestamp > > + MKFS_OPTIONS=-I128 _scratch_mkfs_ext4 &>> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "ext4 mkfs failed" > > + > > + mount -t ext4 ${SCRATCH_DEV} ${SCRATCH_MNT} > > + _check_dmesg_for "ext4 filesystem being mounted at ${SCRATCH_MNT} supports timestamps until 2038" || \ > > + _notrun "Kernel does not support timestamp limits" > > + umount ${SCRATCH_MNT} > > +} > > + > > Deepa, > > Thank you for following up. > I am not sure if mkfs.ext4 of scratch partition in a generic test is going to be > very popular - let's see what others have to say. > You can certainly now do that without checking that ${SCRATCH_DEV} is > a blockdev which is not the case for overlay and networking filesystems. _require_block_device() should alleviate this concern. But, I think making it a loop back device is a good idea. I meant to check when mkfs.ext4 would fail, but I forgot. I will change this in v2. > Why did you choose not to use a loop mounted ext2 for the check as > I suggested? > You can use _require_loop() and _require_ext2() inside the check. > In any case, please also check for failure to mount. I did not not see anybody creating ext2 filesystem, and I thought that finding a kernel supporting ext4 was a lot more likely. We can add a _require_ext4() along the lines of _ext2_reqire() if really necessary. We should also add "_require_command "$MKFS_EXT4_PROG" mkfs.ext4". I think it does not matter which filesystem we use unless we get the warning. Let me know if I missed something. I will pick one of the two: ext4 (with small inode) or ext2 and do a loop back device instead for v2. I will also add the suggested-by that I forgot on this patch. -Deepa
diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc index 816588d6..472db995 100644 --- a/common/rc +++ b/common/rc @@ -1981,6 +1981,17 @@ _run_aiodio() return $status } +_require_kernel_timestamp_range() +{ + # 128-byte inodes do not have room for extended timestamp + MKFS_OPTIONS=-I128 _scratch_mkfs_ext4 &>> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "ext4 mkfs failed" + + mount -t ext4 ${SCRATCH_DEV} ${SCRATCH_MNT} + _check_dmesg_for "ext4 filesystem being mounted at ${SCRATCH_MNT} supports timestamps until 2038" || \ + _notrun "Kernel does not support timestamp limits" + umount ${SCRATCH_MNT} +} + _require_timestamp_range() { local device=${1:-$TEST_DEV} diff --git a/tests/generic/402 b/tests/generic/402 index 0392c258..2be94c54 100755 --- a/tests/generic/402 +++ b/tests/generic/402 @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full _supported_fs generic _supported_os Linux _require_scratch +_require_check_dmesg _require_xfs_io_command utimes # Compare file timestamps obtained from stat @@ -79,6 +80,8 @@ run_test() done } +_require_kernel_timestamp_range + _scratch_mkfs &>> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "mkfs failed" _require_timestamp_range $SCRATCH_DEV
Addition of fs-specific timestamp range checking was added in 188d20bcd1eb ("vfs: Add file timestamp range support"). Add a check for whether the kernel supports the limits check before running the associated test. Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> --- common/rc | 11 +++++++++++ tests/generic/402 | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)