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. Best regards Heinrich > > So... I'm inclined to say that to start with, I bring this patch in and > then disable FAT fsck (as I cannot see how to mark these as xfail with > a comment that we need to fix them, only for FAT). But we should get > these FAT problems fixed. > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot