Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Shell script is the one I'm most familiar with, and that maybe true
> for other kernel developers too.
>
> Also, it's what xfstests are using and it would make sense to move
> towards that. Although I'm not sure how well it supports
> multiple-device filesystems.
It
Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Shell script is the one I'm most familiar with, and that maybe true
for other kernel developers too.
Also, it's what xfstests are using and it would make sense to move
towards that. Although I'm not sure how well it supports
multiple-device
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:30 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
>> And this one is a missing annotation in overlayfs. Tested patch pushed to
>> the
>> usual branches.
>
> Looks good so far, though there are a few more bits to try and break -
> rename() for example.
>
> I also
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> And this one is a missing annotation in overlayfs. Tested patch pushed to the
> usual branches.
Looks good so far, though there are a few more bits to try and break -
rename() for example.
I also want to rewrite my test stuff in something a little more wieldy than
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:33:54AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> > Fix now pushed to overlayfs.v22/overlayfs.current.
>
> I ran my testscript, which leaves a clean set up and mounted overlay fs
> behind. I then ran:
>
> for ((i=100; i<=129; i++)); do mv
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
[...]
>> [ NOTE-2: The call-trace I have seen once (TERMSLASH=0).
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Fix now pushed to overlayfs.v22/overlayfs.current.
I ran my testscript, which leaves a clean set up and mounted overlay fs
behind. I then ran:
for ((i=100; i<=129; i++)); do mv /mnt/a/foo$i /mnt/a/bar$i; done
for ((i=100; i<=129; i++)); do mv
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>> [...]
> [ NOTE-2: The call-trace I have seen once (TERMSLASH=0). ]
Do you know for which operation?
>
> This
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> [...]
[ NOTE-2: The call-trace I have seen once (TERMSLASH=0). ]
>>>
>>> Do you know for which operation?
This still looks like the same annotation problem in
[...]
> The lockdep appears one time in the logs... I tried several...
>
> # LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh truncate.test
>
> ...and see the only lockdep.
>
> Sorry, I cannot say which of the test-no (is that what you mean by
> operation?) is causing the lockdep.
>
> Truncate-test results
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> [...]
>>> [ NOTE-2: The call-trace I have seen once (TERMSLASH=0). ]
>>
>> Do you know for which operation?
>>
>
> # echo $TESTS
> open-plain.test open-trunc.test open-creat.test open-creat-trunc.test
> open-creat-excl.test
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, David Howells wrote:
> My suspicion is that overlayfs is doing stuff to the lower layer whilst
> holding a lock on the upper layer or vice versa.
No. It's holding the overlayfs i_mutex and then getting either the
upper *or* the lower i_mutex, but never both. So
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> [ Re-Tested with 3.15.0-rc8-1-iniza-lockdep ]
>
> Running the impermissible test on OverlayFS with TERMSLASH=1 is
> successful here
That's not very surprising. utimensat() doesn't even get out of pathwalk if
the filename has a terminal slash and the fs_op macro correctly
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
[ Re-Tested with 3.15.0-rc8-1-iniza-lockdep ]
Running the impermissible test on OverlayFS with TERMSLASH=1 is
successful here
That's not very surprising. utimensat() doesn't even get out of pathwalk if
the filename has a terminal slash and the fs_op
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
My suspicion is that overlayfs is doing stuff to the lower layer whilst
holding a lock on the upper layer or vice versa.
No. It's holding the overlayfs i_mutex and then getting either the
upper *or* the lower i_mutex,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
[ NOTE-2: The call-trace I have seen once (TERMSLASH=0). ]
Do you know for which operation?
# echo $TESTS
open-plain.test open-trunc.test open-creat.test open-creat-trunc.test
open-creat-excl.test
[...]
The lockdep appears one time in the logs... I tried several...
# LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh truncate.test
...and see the only lockdep.
Sorry, I cannot say which of the test-no (is that what you mean by
operation?) is causing the lockdep.
Truncate-test results attached.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
[ NOTE-2: The call-trace I have seen once (TERMSLASH=0). ]
Do you know for which operation?
This still looks like the same annotation
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
[ NOTE-2: The call-trace I have seen once (TERMSLASH=0). ]
Do you
Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Fix now pushed to overlayfs.v22/overlayfs.current.
I ran my testscript, which leaves a clean set up and mounted overlay fs
behind. I then ran:
for ((i=100; i=129; i++)); do mv /mnt/a/foo$i /mnt/a/bar$i; done
for ((i=100; i=129; i++)); do
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:33:54AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Fix now pushed to overlayfs.v22/overlayfs.current.
I ran my testscript, which leaves a clean set up and mounted overlay fs
behind. I then ran:
for ((i=100; i=129; i++)); do mv
Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
And this one is a missing annotation in overlayfs. Tested patch pushed to the
usual branches.
Looks good so far, though there are a few more bits to try and break -
rename() for example.
I also want to rewrite my test stuff in something a little more
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:30 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
And this one is a missing annotation in overlayfs. Tested patch pushed to
the
usual branches.
Looks good so far, though there are a few more bits to try and break -
rename()
David Howells:
> > Does readlink(2) return "/u/fileA" instead of /ro/fileA?"
>
> No.
>
> The test suite sets the lower symlink to point to the union path for its
> target.
>
> [root@andromeda union-testsuite]# readlink /lower/a/indirect_dir_sym100
> /mnt/a/direct_dir_sym100
Now I've found
David Howells wrote:
> I'll have to address the termslash alterations at some point.
Okay. Done and pushed.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
J. R. Okajima wrote:
> I've found some interesting cases.
>
> - impermissible.test,
> open_file_as_bin -t -w $file -E EACCES
> When $termslash is "/", a '/' is appended to the expanded $file, such
> as "/path/fileA/". If fileA is a regular file, that path is obviously
> wrong. Does
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> umount: /mnt: not mounted
Don't worry about that.
> TEST104: Impermissible utimes
> - fs_op_as_bin utimes /mnt/a/rootfile104 -E EACCES
> /mnt/a/rootfile104: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 130)
That might be a failure in overlayfs.
David
--
To unsubscribe from
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
umount: /mnt: not mounted
Don't worry about that.
TEST104: Impermissible utimes
- fs_op_as_bin utimes /mnt/a/rootfile104 -E EACCES
/mnt/a/rootfile104: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 130)
That might be a failure in overlayfs.
David
--
To
J. R. Okajima hooanon...@gmail.com wrote:
I've found some interesting cases.
- impermissible.test,
open_file_as_bin -t -w $file -E EACCES
When $termslash is /, a '/' is appended to the expanded $file, such
as /path/fileA/. If fileA is a regular file, that path is obviously
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
I'll have to address the termslash alterations at some point.
Okay. Done and pushed.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
David Howells:
Does readlink(2) return /u/fileA instead of /ro/fileA?
No.
The test suite sets the lower symlink to point to the union path for its
target.
[root@andromeda union-testsuite]# readlink /lower/a/indirect_dir_sym100
/mnt/a/direct_dir_sym100
Now I've found your latest
"J. R. Okajima":
> - readlink.test,
> fs_op readlink $file -R $testdir/direct_dir_sym100 ${termslash:+-E
> EINVAL}
> It expects "$testdir/direct_dir_sym100". Does it mean UnionMount
> converts the target path?
> For example,
> - /u = /rw + /ro
> - /rw/symlinkA doesn't exist
> -
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:59 PM, David Howells wrote:
>> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>>> "Fixable" in your testsuite?
>>
>> Done and pushed.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
> I still see lots of...
>
> umount: /mnt: not mounted
>
> ...and impermissible.test
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:59 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> "Fixable" in your testsuite?
>
> Done and pushed.
>
Thanks.
I still see lots of...
umount: /mnt: not mounted
...and impermissible.test fails here...
***
*** ./run.sh impermissible.test
***
umount: /mnt: not
David Howells:
> http://git.infradead.org/users/dhowells/unionmount-testsuite.git
I've found some interesting cases.
- impermissible.test,
open_file_as_bin -t -w $file -E EACCES
When $termslash is "/", a '/' is appended to the expanded $file, such
as "/path/fileA/". If fileA is a
[cc fste...@vger.kernel.org]
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:48:01PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/dhowells/unionmount-testsuite.git
>
> Check it out and read the README file as to how to drive it. Sorry, it's a
> bit crude. I may rewrite it in python or perl at
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> "Fixable" in your testsuite?
Done and pushed.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:35 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> # LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS="1" ./run.sh
>> [ run.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
>> ***
>> *** ./run.sh open-plain.test
>> ***
>> [ mount_union.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
>> TEST100: Open O_RDONLY
>> - open_file -r
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> # LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS="1" ./run.sh
> [ run.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
> ***
> *** ./run.sh open-plain.test
> ***
> [ mount_union.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
> TEST100: Open O_RDONLY
> - open_file -r /mnt/a/foo100 -R :xxx:yyy:zzz
> - open_file -r /mnt/a/foo100 -R
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:25 PM, David Howells wrote:
>
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> # LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS="1" ./run.sh
>> [ run.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
>> ***
>> *** ./run.sh open-plain.test
>> ***
>> [ mount_union.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
>> TEST100: Open O_RDONLY
>> - open_file -r
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> # LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS="1" ./run.sh
> [ run.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
> ***
> *** ./run.sh open-plain.test
> ***
> [ mount_union.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
> TEST100: Open O_RDONLY
> - open_file -r /mnt/a/foo100 -R :xxx:yyy:zzz
> - open_file -r /mnt/a/foo100 -R
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:20 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> Hmm, why is the generated binary callled "open-file" and in the
>> scripts I see "open_file"?
>
> grep is your friend:-) Look in tool_box.inc
>
I resetted to origin/HEAD and still get...
# LC_ALL=C
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> Hmm, why is the generated binary callled "open-file" and in the
> scripts I see "open_file"?
grep is your friend:-) Look in tool_box.inc
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:22 PM, David Howells wrote:
>> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>>> > TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
>>> >
>>> > right?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yes (with my mount-patch applied).
>>>
>>> ( ...and... # umount /lower /upper /mnt )
>>
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:22 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> > TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
>> >
>> > right?
>> >
>>
>> Yes (with my mount-patch applied).
>>
>> ( ...and... # umount /lower /upper /mnt )
>
> Can you put a couple of echo commands in settings.inc to show
Dave Jones wrote:
> The more interesting parts of lockdep come under CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
Ah, yes... I have that one enabled also.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 06:50:03PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> > config LOCKDEP
> > bool
>
> It has no name, so you can't turn it on manually. You have to enable
> something the depends on or selects it.
>
> Turn on:
>
>
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
> >
> > right?
> >
>
> Yes (with my mount-patch applied).
>
> ( ...and... # umount /lower /upper /mnt )
Can you put a couple of echo commands in settings.inc to show which side of
the if-statement it goes and also put:
echo
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> config LOCKDEP
>> bool
>
> It has no name, so you can't turn it on manually. You have to enable
> something the depends on or selects it.
>
> Turn on:
>
> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
>
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> config LOCKDEP
> bool
It has no name, so you can't turn it on manually. You have to enable
something the depends on or selects it.
Turn on:
CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=y
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:41 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> >> /mnt/a/foo101: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 30)
>> >
>> > Now check dmesg.
>> >
>>
>> [ 1384.995334] tmpfs: No value for mount option 'union'
>
> That's going down the unionmount testing route, it
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> /mnt/a/foo101: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 30)
> >
> > Now check dmesg.
> >
>
> [ 1384.995334] tmpfs: No value for mount option 'union'
That's going down the unionmount testing route, it would appear. You're
definitely doing:
TEST_OVERLAYFS=1
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> /mnt/a/foo101: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 30)
>
> Now check dmesg.
>
[ 1384.995334] tmpfs: No value for mount option 'union'
- Sedat -
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:15 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> # grep LOCKDEP /boot/config-3.15.0-rc7-58.1-iniza-small
>> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
>
> That's not LOCKDEP, merely support for it. What I see:
>
> warthog>grep LOCKDEP build/.config
>
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> /mnt/a/foo101: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 30)
Now check dmesg.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> # grep LOCKDEP /boot/config-3.15.0-rc7-58.1-iniza-small
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
That's not LOCKDEP, merely support for it. What I see:
warthog>grep LOCKDEP build/.config
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y
> ./tool_box.inc: line 144:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:15 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> # grep LOCKDEP /boot/config-3.15.0-rc7-58.1-iniza-small
>> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
>
> That's not LOCKDEP, merely support for it. What I see:
>
> warthog>grep LOCKDEP build/.config
>
Sedat Dilek wrote:
> -/root/util-linux-union/mount/mount -i -t tmpfs upper_layer
> $union_mntroot -o union || exit $?
> +mount -i -t tmpfs upper_layer $union_mntroot -o union || exit $?
That's irrelevant if you're testing overlayfs.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
http://git.infradead.org/users/dhowells/unionmount-testsuite.git
Check it out and read the README file as to how to drive it. Sorry, it's a
bit crude. I may rewrite it in python or perl at some point.
Make sure you turn on CONFIG_LOCKDEP before running it - you don't want to
miss any locking
http://git.infradead.org/users/dhowells/unionmount-testsuite.git
Check it out and read the README file as to how to drive it. Sorry, it's a
bit crude. I may rewrite it in python or perl at some point.
Make sure you turn on CONFIG_LOCKDEP before running it - you don't want to
miss any locking
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
-/root/util-linux-union/mount/mount -i -t tmpfs upper_layer
$union_mntroot -o union || exit $?
+mount -i -t tmpfs upper_layer $union_mntroot -o union || exit $?
That's irrelevant if you're testing overlayfs.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:15 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
# grep LOCKDEP /boot/config-3.15.0-rc7-58.1-iniza-small
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
That's not LOCKDEP, merely support for it. What I see:
warthoggrep LOCKDEP
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
# grep LOCKDEP /boot/config-3.15.0-rc7-58.1-iniza-small
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
That's not LOCKDEP, merely support for it. What I see:
warthoggrep LOCKDEP build/.config
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
/mnt/a/foo101: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 30)
Now check dmesg.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:15 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
# grep LOCKDEP /boot/config-3.15.0-rc7-58.1-iniza-small
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
That's not LOCKDEP, merely support for it. What I see:
warthoggrep LOCKDEP
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
/mnt/a/foo101: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 30)
Now check dmesg.
[ 1384.995334] tmpfs: No value for mount option 'union'
- Sedat -
--
To unsubscribe from this
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
/mnt/a/foo101: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 30)
Now check dmesg.
[ 1384.995334] tmpfs: No value for mount option 'union'
That's going down the unionmount testing route, it would appear. You're
definitely doing:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:41 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
/mnt/a/foo101: Test file not on upper filesystem (line 30)
Now check dmesg.
[ 1384.995334] tmpfs: No value for mount option 'union'
That's going down the unionmount
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
config LOCKDEP
bool
It has no name, so you can't turn it on manually. You have to enable
something the depends on or selects it.
Turn on:
CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=y
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
config LOCKDEP
bool
It has no name, so you can't turn it on manually. You have to enable
something the depends on or selects it.
Turn on:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
right?
Yes (with my mount-patch applied).
( ...and... # umount /lower /upper /mnt )
Can you put a couple of echo commands in settings.inc to show which side of
the if-statement it goes and also put:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 06:50:03PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
config LOCKDEP
bool
It has no name, so you can't turn it on manually. You have to enable
something the depends on or selects it.
Turn on:
Dave Jones da...@redhat.com wrote:
The more interesting parts of lockdep come under CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
Ah, yes... I have that one enabled also.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:22 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
right?
Yes (with my mount-patch applied).
( ...and... # umount /lower /upper /mnt )
Can you put a couple of echo commands in
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:22 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
right?
Yes (with my mount-patch applied).
( ...and... #
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, why is the generated binary callled open-file and in the
scripts I see open_file?
grep is your friend:-) Look in tool_box.inc
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:20 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, why is the generated binary callled open-file and in the
scripts I see open_file?
grep is your friend:-) Look in tool_box.inc
I resetted to origin/HEAD and still get...
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
# LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
[ run.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
***
*** ./run.sh open-plain.test
***
[ mount_union.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
TEST100: Open O_RDONLY
- open_file -r /mnt/a/foo100 -R :xxx:yyy:zzz
- open_file -r /mnt/a/foo100 -R
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:25 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
# LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
[ run.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
***
*** ./run.sh open-plain.test
***
[ mount_union.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
TEST100: Open O_RDONLY
-
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
# LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
[ run.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
***
*** ./run.sh open-plain.test
***
[ mount_union.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
TEST100: Open O_RDONLY
- open_file -r /mnt/a/foo100 -R :xxx:yyy:zzz
- open_file -r /mnt/a/foo100 -R
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:35 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
# LC_ALL=C TEST_OVERLAYFS=1 ./run.sh
[ run.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
***
*** ./run.sh open-plain.test
***
[ mount_union.sh ] TEST_OVERLAYFS is 1
TEST100: Open O_RDONLY
-
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
Fixable in your testsuite?
Done and pushed.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please
[cc fste...@vger.kernel.org]
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:48:01PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
http://git.infradead.org/users/dhowells/unionmount-testsuite.git
Check it out and read the README file as to how to drive it. Sorry, it's a
bit crude. I may rewrite it in python or perl at some
David Howells:
http://git.infradead.org/users/dhowells/unionmount-testsuite.git
I've found some interesting cases.
- impermissible.test,
open_file_as_bin -t -w $file -E EACCES
When $termslash is /, a '/' is appended to the expanded $file, such
as /path/fileA/. If fileA is a regular
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:59 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
Fixable in your testsuite?
Done and pushed.
Thanks.
I still see lots of...
umount: /mnt: not mounted
...and impermissible.test fails here...
***
*** ./run.sh
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:59 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
Fixable in your testsuite?
Done and pushed.
Thanks.
I still see lots of...
umount: /mnt: not
J. R. Okajima:
- readlink.test,
fs_op readlink $file -R $testdir/direct_dir_sym100 ${termslash:+-E
EINVAL}
It expects $testdir/direct_dir_sym100. Does it mean UnionMount
converts the target path?
For example,
- /u = /rw + /ro
- /rw/symlinkA doesn't exist
- /ro/symlinkA
88 matches
Mail list logo
