[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and btrfs

[Eryu Guan]

Hi,

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:05:41AM +0300, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/25/2016 09:31 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> >>To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> >>Cc: "Boyang Xue" <bxue@redhat.com>, "stanislav kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>, ltp@lists.linux.it
> >>Sent: Tuesday, 24 May, 2016 5:26:22 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] test_robind: add "-f" mkfs option for xfs and	btrfs
> >>
> >>Hi!
> >>>Alternative would be to zero-erase first blocks of LTP_BIG_DEV
> >>>in runltp, but I'm not sure we want to assume that all tests
> >>>are going to write over it.
> >>>
> >>>I found only 3 tests using LTP_BIG_DEV, this is the only
> >>>one that is using xfs/btrfs, the other two are ext3/4.
> >>
> >>Or we can move the dd that erases first blocks from tst_acquire_device()
> >>to tst_mkfs().
> >
> >I went to re-read why we are avoiding -f, and this does sound better
> >than adding -f back.
> 
> If we move 'dd' to tst_mkfs(), then tst_acquire_device will return
> "uncleared" devices, and mkfs_ext* test cases from runtest/commands will
> start failing in our environment, i.e. we revert f79021c5d168256.
> 
> I'd ack the patch, since it affects only one test case.

Any decision made on this patch?

I agreed with acking this patch, it's a targeted fix and only only
affects robind tests and is the easiest way to fix the failure at this
moment :)

Thanks,
Eryu