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. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
