[PATCH v2 1/2] generic/732: remove unused code

[PATCH v2 1/2] generic/732: remove unused code

[Yang Erkun]

After commit 4fd042e0465c("generic/732: don't run it on NFS"), we will
not run this case for nfs, so remove this unused code.

Signed-off-by: Yang Erkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>
---
 tests/generic/732 | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/generic/732 b/tests/generic/732
index a571f0f5..d8475cda 100755
--- a/tests/generic/732
+++ b/tests/generic/732
@@ -34,11 +34,6 @@ testdir2=$TEST_DIR/mountpoint2-$seq
 rm -rf $testdir1 $testdir2
 mkdir -p $testdir1 $testdir2
 
-# Don't share the data and attribute caches among mount points for NFS.
-# This caching behavior is necessary to reproduce this issue as we're
-# checking the alignment of each mount point's own unique cache.
-[ "$FSTYP" = "nfs" ] && MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o nosharecache"
-
 SCRATCH_MNT=$testdir1 _scratch_mount
 SCRATCH_MNT=$testdir2 _scratch_mount
 rm -rf $testdir1/{A,B}
-- 
2.39.2

[PATCH v2 2/2] generic/732: don't run it on tmpfs

[Yang Erkun]

Like what 4fd042e0465c("generic/732: don't run it on NFS") say, the same
options for tmpfs won't share the same backend. Skip it for tmpfs.

Besides, add some explanation for why we should skip tmpfs.

Signed-off-by: Yang Erkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>
---
 tests/generic/732 | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/generic/732 b/tests/generic/732
index d8475cda..d08028c2 100755
--- a/tests/generic/732
+++ b/tests/generic/732
@@ -21,7 +21,10 @@ _cleanup()
 	rm -r -f $tmp.*
 }
 
-_supported_fs ^nfs ^overlay
+# This case give a assumption that the same mount options for
+# different mount point will share the same superblock, which won't
+# sucess for the follow fs.
+_supported_fs ^nfs ^overlay ^tmpfs
 
 _require_test
 _require_scratch
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] generic/732: remove unused code

[Christoph Hellwig]

Looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] generic/732: don't run it on tmpfs

[Christoph Hellwig]

Looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] generic/732: don't run it on tmpfs

[Chuck Lever III]

> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> Looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 

I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs.

tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732
failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list --
it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to
reappear.


--
Chuck Lever

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] generic/732: don't run it on tmpfs

[Chuck Lever III]

> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:21 AM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Looks good:
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>> 
> 
> I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs.
> 
> tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732
> failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list --
> it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to
> reappear.

Never mind.

Christoph, you deleted the context for this, and the
Subject: was one character different than the one for
generic/736. Even properly dosed on caffeine I missed
that.

--
Chuck Lever

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] generic/732: don't run it on tmpfs

[yangerkun]

在 2024/7/29 22:21, Chuck Lever III 写道:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Looks good:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>
> 
> I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs.
> 
> tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732
> failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list --
> it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to
> reappear.

The reason why I thinks it should not run for tmpfs is that the same 
mount options won't share the same sb. I prefer it's a expected behavior...


> 
> 
> --
> Chuck Lever
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] generic/732: don't run it on tmpfs

[yangerkun]

在 2024/7/29 22:24, Chuck Lever III 写道:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:21 AM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks good:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>>
>>
>> I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs.
>>
>> tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732
>> failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list --
>> it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to
>> reappear.
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> Christoph, you deleted the context for this, and the
> Subject: was one character different than the one for
> generic/736. Even properly dosed on caffeine I missed
> that.

Aha, got it.

> 
> --
> Chuck Lever
> 
>