Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 16:26:01 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Boyang Xue <bxue@redhat.com>
Cc:     fstests@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: regression test for "tune2fs -l" after ext4
 shutdown
Message-ID: <20210818142601.GF28119@quack2.suse.cz>
References: <20210818084126.4167799-1-bxue@redhat.com>
 <20210818114517.kqvfzu2vd45vuhze@fedora>
 <CAHLe9YZcuo2K6ELT0p1c6sfzwkSgikeiyNect4phEoCt8vTPXw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHLe9YZcuo2K6ELT0p1c6sfzwkSgikeiyNect4phEoCt8vTPXw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 18-08-21 21:20:44, Boyang Xue wrote:
> > > +
> > > +# real QA test starts here
> > > +_supported_fs ext4
> >
> > I'm wondering if this case can be a generic case, there's nothing
> > ext4 specified operations, except this line:
> >
> > "$TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV"
> >
> > Hmm... if we can change this line to something likes _get_fs_super(),
> > it might help to make this test to be a generic test.
> 
> I think this bug is heavily related to "tune2fs", ext4 only. So I
> guess an ext4 only test is enough?

FWIW I agree with Boyang here. For this test to make sense for any other
filesystem other the filesystem would need to read fs metadata through
buffer cache in _get_fs_super(). Furthermore it is somewhat ext2/3/4
specific (due to historical reasons) that reading superblock from the
buffer cache of a mounted filesystem is expected to result in something
sensible. Usually this is plain unsupported use...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR