On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 06:00:15PM +0100, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
On 01/02/2019 16:18, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 03:33:36PM +0100, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
This is to check the integrity of the FS after the test operations. This is useful to make sure that the operations are implemented properly, and are not going to create silent corruptions. Currently only the integrity of EXT4 filesystems is checked.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Jacques Hiblot jjhiblot@ti.com
Changes in v2:
- Add a FS integrity check at the end of the FS tests
test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py b/test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py index 745ed0ed38..e742cda662 100644 --- a/test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py +++ b/test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py @@ -216,6 +216,15 @@ def mount_fs(fs_type, device, mount_point): except CalledProcessError: raise
+def fsck(img, fs_type):
- try:
if fs_type == 'ext4':check_call('fsck.ext4 -n -f %s' % img, shell=True)- except CalledProcessError:
raiseWhy don't we just call 'fsck -f -n ...' and check all filesystems?
Force and "make no changes" are both general fsck options and not
Strange. those options do not appear in the help or manpage.
I'll switch to fsck in the next version
Ugh, I take it back and blame myself. You can't just do /sbin/fsck --help and get something like I expected but didn't read closely enough to see it was plumbing down to fsck.ext4. So what you have above is right and the it falls on me to add a patch to fsck.vfat or so later.
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com