[U-Boot] [U-Boot, RESEND, v5, 3/7] test: fs: Add filesystem integrity checks

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

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 <jjhiblot at ti.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini at 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.
>