On 30/04/2025 16:52, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 08:26:00AM +0000, Hans Holmberg wrote: >> On 28/04/2025 17:58, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 12:16:34PM +0000, Hans Holmberg wrote: >>>> On 25/04/2025 17:05, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>>>> ps this test should check >>>>> that a readonly log device results in a norecovery mount and that >>>>> pending changes don't show up if the mount succeeds? >>>>> >>>>> Also, ext4 supports external log devices, should this be in >>>>> tests/generic? >>>> >>>> Doh!, actually ext4 has a test for this already, ext4/002 >>>> (also based on generic/050) >>>> >>>> With my fix, ext4/002 passes for xfs Should/can we turn that into a >>>> generic test? >>> >>> Yeah, it looks like ext4/002 already does most of what you want. Though >>> I'd amend it to check that SCRATCH_MNT/00-99 aren't visible in the >>> norecovery mounts and only appear after recovery actually runs. >>> >> >> So I added this check to ext4/002 and while this works for xfs - the >> touched files are not visible until log recovery has completed, it does >> not for ext3/4. >> >> For ext3/4 the files are visible after the first successful (norecovery) >> mount, so even though we did a shutdown, a log recovery does not seem >> required (dmesg tells me that the log recovery is done in the end after >> the log device is set back to rw) >> >> ..and I presume this is fine - for a generic test can we really assume >> that a log recovery is required to see the files? > > Nope. I guess that's an implementation dependent behavior. TBH I'm not > even sure we can 100% rely on it for xfs, since it's theoretically > possible for the log to flush and checkpoint in the very small window > between the creat and the shutdown call. > > If hoisting ext4/002 to generic works for the three main filesystems > then I'm fine with just doing that without the extra tests. Cool, I've submitted a patch to turn ext4 generic.
