> > Actually I'm wondering if we should help xfstests to support BASE_FSTYP and FSTYP
> > for more upper layer fs, likes nfs, cifs, and so on.
>
> I think that could be very useful, but will require cifs/nfs to implement
> more complicated _mount/umount/remount helpers like overlay.
>
> > If so, overlay will not be
> > the only one fs who uses BASE_FSTYP and BASE_SCRATCH_DEV things, then we need to
> > differentiate if a feature (e.g. shutdown) is needed by upper layer fs or underlying
> > fs in a case.
> >
>
> First of all, terminology. Many get this wrong.
> In overlayfs, the "upper" and "lower" refer to the different underlying layers.
> In fstests BASE_SCRATCH_DEV is always the same for both OVL_UPPER and
> OVL_LOWER layers.
>
> Referring to the BASE_SCRATCH_DEV as "underlying" or "base" fs is
> unambiguous in all cases of overlay/nfs/cifs.
>
> I do not have a good terminology to offer for referring to the "fs under test"
> be it overlay/cifs/nfs. You are welcome to offer your suggestions.
>
Sorry, I forgot to answer the question.
So far, with overlayfs there was no need for anything other than
_require_scratch_shutdown and _scratch_shutdown and
_scratch_remount for generic tests that do shutdown and remount
to test consistency after a crash.
overlay tests that are aware of the underlying layers and perform
operations explicitly on underlying layers are not generic tests
they are overlay/* tests, so the generic helpers are not for them.
Bottom line is that I do not think that _require_scratch_shutdown
should refer to fs under test or base fs, until I see a generic
test case that suggests otherwise.
What we could do is a re-factoring:
_require_shutdown()
{
local dev=$1
local mnt=$2
...
}
_require_scratch_shutdown()
{
_require_shutdown $SCRATCH_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT
}
Then overlay,cifs,nfs/* tests can call _require_shutdown on base fs
if they want to, but first, let's see a test case that needs it.
Thanks,
Amir.
