On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 7:32 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 12:07:43PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > This test performs shutdown via xfs_io -c shutdown. > > > > > > Overlayfs tests can use _scratch_shutdown, but they cannot use > > > "-c shutdown" xfs_io command without jumping through hoops, so by > > > default we do not support it. > > > > > > Add this condition to _require_xfs_io_command and add the require > > > statement to test generic/623 so it wont run with overlayfs. > > > > > > Reported-by: André Almeida <andrealmeid@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Tested-by: André Almeida <andrealmeid@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20250521-ovl_ro-v1-1-2350b1493d94@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > common/rc | 8 ++++++++ > > > tests/generic/623 | 1 + > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > > index d8ee8328..bffd576a 100644 > > > --- a/common/rc > > > +++ b/common/rc > > > @@ -3033,6 +3033,14 @@ _require_xfs_io_command() > > > touch $testfile > > > testio=`$XFS_IO_PROG -c "syncfs" $testfile 2>&1` > > > ;; > > > + "shutdown") > > > + if [ $FSTYP = "overlay" ]; then > > > + # Overlayfs tests can use _scratch_shutdown, but they > > > + # cannot use "-c shutdown" xfs_io command without jumping > > > + # through hoops, so by default we do not support it. > > > + _notrun "xfs_io $command not supported on $FSTYP" > > > + fi > > > + ;; > > > > Hmm... I'm not sure this's a good way. > > For example, overlay/087 does xfs_io shutdown too, > > Yes it does but look at the effort needed to do that properly: > > $XFS_IO_PROG -x -c "open $(_scratch_shutdown_handle)" -c 'shutdown -f > ' -c close -c syncfs $SCRATCH_MNT | \ > grep -vF '[00' > > > generally it should calls > > _require_xfs_io_command "shutdown" although it doesn't. If someone overlay > > test case hope to test as o/087 does, and it calls _require_xfs_io_command "shutdown", > > then it'll be _notrun. > > If someone knows enough to perform the dance above with _scratch_shutdown_handle > then that someone should know enough not to call > _require_xfs_io_command "shutdown". > OTOH, if someone doesn't know then default is to not run. Sure, I can understand that, just this logic is a bit *obscure* :) It sounds like: "If an overlay test case wants to do xfs_io shutdown, it shouldn't call _require_xfs_io_command "shutdown". Or call that to skip a shutdown test on overlay :)" And the expected result of _require_xfs_io_command "shutdown" will be totally opposite with _require_scratch_shutdown on overlay, that might be confused. Can we have a clearer way to deal with that? > > > > > If g/623 is not suitable for overlay, how about skip it for overlay clearly, by > > `_exclude_fs overlay` ? > > > > I do not personally mind doing this _exclude_fs overlay, but it is usually > prefered to require what the test needs. > > Whatever you prefer is fine by me. I don't perfer "_exclude_fs overlay", just before we have a clear way to deal with overlay shutdown, this might be simple and forthright :) Thanks, Zorro > > Thanks, > Amir. >
