image-erofs: introduce basic support for erofs #247
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | |||
| image test.erofs { | |||
| erofs { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Set the filesystem uuid here with extraargs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should i just hardcode the UUID to a specific value? I tried checking the other occurances of uuid's in tests and they mostly seem to revolve around the partition table uuid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there's also the possibility of adding a dedicated uuid parameter as the commit introduces new public API anyway
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need for a dedicated parameter. We don't have it anywhere else either. Just put a random uuid here to make the output of dump.erofs more predictable.
| test_expect_success mkfs_erofs,fsck_erofs "erofs" " | ||
| run_genimage_root erofs.config test.erofs && | ||
| fsck.erofs -p images/test.erofs | tee erofs.log && | ||
| test_must_fail grep -q 'Filesystem was changed' erofs.log |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like something to see that the content actually reached the filesystem.
- use check_size
- dump.erofs -s -S --ls --path=/ test.erofs | grep -v 'Filesystem created' > dump
test_cmp "${testdir}/erofs.dump" "dump"
That will not check everything, but that contains the file count and the dir listing of the toplevel dir.
Tip: I insert a "cp dump ${testdir}/erofs.dump" so save the expected output on the first try and remove the line again afterwards.
And don't forget to add the new file to EXTRA_DIST in Makefile.am
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Muxel <sebastian.muxel@entner-electronics.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Muxel <sebastian.muxel@entner-electronics.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Muxel <sebastian.muxel@entner-electronics.com>
ee-smuxel
force-pushed
the
erofs_support
branch
from
2c4b2ce
to
b27d45e
Compare
Erofs is a read-only file-system supported by the Linux Kernel since version 5.4.
This patchset adds basic support, a test & documentation for the filesystem.
I'm tempted to add some of the command-line options as dedicated config
nodes, but i'm unsure if it should be done.
these in extra-args will likely be easier.
I'm also not 100% sure about the testcase so i'm happy for comments