On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:37:42AM +0900, Takahiro Akashi wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 08:19:40PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:10:12AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > On 4/9/19 10:03 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:15:23PM +0100, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote: > > > > > > > >> We need to make sure that file writes,file creation, etc. are properly > > > >> performed and do not corrupt the filesystem. > > > >> To help with this, introduce the assert_fs_integrity() function that > > > >> executes the appropriate fsck tool. It should be called at the end of > > > >> any > > > >> test that modify the content/organization of the filesystem. > > > >> Currently only supports FATs and EXT4. > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhib...@ti.com> > > > >> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > > > > > > OK, I'm adding in a bunch of people to CC here. The issue with this > > > > patch is that by adding fsck to our tests we see 34 FAT16/FAT32 > > > > failures: > > > > TestFsBasic.test_fs13[fat16] > > > > TestFsBasic.test_fs11[fat32] > > > > TestFsBasic.test_fs12[fat32] > > > > TestFsBasic.test_fs13[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext1[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext2[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext3[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext4[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext5[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext6[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext7[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext8[fat32] > > > > TestFsExt.test_fs_ext9[fat32] > > > > TestMkdir.test_mkdir6[fat16] > > > > TestMkdir.test_mkdir1[fat32] > > > > TestMkdir.test_mkdir2[fat32] > > > > TestMkdir.test_mkdir3[fat32] > > > > TestMkdir.test_mkdir4[fat32] > > > > TestMkdir.test_mkdir5[fat32] > > > > TestMkdir.test_mkdir6[fat32] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink1[fat16] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink2[fat16] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink3[fat16] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink4[fat16] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink5[fat16] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink6[fat16] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink7[fat16] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink1[fat32] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink2[fat32] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink3[fat32] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink4[fat32] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink5[fat32] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink6[fat32] > > > > TestUnlink.test_unlink7[fat32] > > > > > > I appreciate that we get tests for file system functions. > > > > > > Unfortunately the test output is rudimentary. Can we have something more > > > expressive than unlink1 - unlink7? > > > > > > CCing Takahiro as he was contributing recently to FAT. > > > > Sorry, yes, kind of? I pasted that in for brevity, but it's basically > > that for example all of test/py/tests/test_fs/test_unlink.py fails if > > you fsck the image in question after each test. If you apply > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1041186/ (to avoid spurious ext4 > > failures) and then https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1041181/ and run > > 'make tests' you'll see the full output. > > I have no time to dig into this issue right now, > but if you give me a log from fsck, particularly > why fsck failed here, it would help me to understand > the problem.
The raw log can be seen here: https://gist.github.com/trini/b68799ed9880a31a3289e9bea033831d > # like the case of ext4, we might have to turn off > # some option at fsck? Note that for ext4 we're turning off the metadata csum feature of the filesystem as we do not support it. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot