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 timestampMKFS_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