From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests btrfs/284: shorten duration, fix output
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:42:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130514204201.GC1765@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51925612.5050002@sgi.com>
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:19:46AM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 01:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > test 284 had... some issues.
> >
> > First, it took so long nobody ran it; so shorten the extent
> > count by a factor of about 100.
> >
> > Having fixed that, we see failures in 2 cases; when start or
> > len is -1, but the golden output file didn't have error
> > output, as if they should pass.
> >
> > I'm going to argue that these *should* both fail; start = -1
> > has no real meaning. length = -1 might mean "the rest
> > of the file" but if that's what you really want, just
> > don't specify -l.
> >
> > So add failure output for those cases.
> >
> > Send all command output to $seq.full, in case that changes
> > in the future; just capture the return value.
> >
> > Then remove the return value echo on failure (50?) because
> > who knows when that might change to some other magic value.
> >
> > Ok, then when defrag actually works, old defrag returned
> > "20" (because?) but a recent commit changed it to 0.
> > So accommodate that too.
> >
> > And remove a stray "HAVE_DEFRAG=1" while we're at it.
> > That variable is never used.
> >
>
> So should I be seeing failures with
> btrfs-progs-0.20-0.2.git91d9eec.el6.x86_64 installed?
>
> ./check btrfs/284
> FSTYP -- btrfs
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 cxfsxe4 3.9.0+
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdk2
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdk2 /mnt/scratch
>
> btrfs/284 - output mismatch (see
> /usr/src/rcj/xfstests/results/btrfs/284.out.bad)
> --- tests/btrfs/284.out 2013-05-14 09:31:35.000000000 -0500
> +++ /usr/src/rcj/xfstests/results/btrfs/284.out.bad 2013-05-14
> 10:10:45.000000000 -0500
> @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@
> btrfs filesystem defragment failed!
> a single file | start > file size && 0 < len < file size | off
> a single file | start = 0 && len < 0 | off (should fail)
> -btrfs filesystem defragment failed!
> a single file | start = 0 && len > file size | off
> a single file | start = 0 && 0 < len < file size | off
> a directory | default | off
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/284.out
> /usr/src/rcj/xfstests/results/btrfs/284.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
> Ran: btrfs/284
> Failures: btrfs/284
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>
Yeah defrag used to spit out a return value on success, that has been fixed
recently. This patch looks good, I just ran it on my box and it ran fine, you
can add
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Thanks,
Josef
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>
Cc: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests btrfs/284: shorten duration, fix output
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:42:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130514204201.GC1765@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51925612.5050002@sgi.com>
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:19:46AM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 01:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > test 284 had... some issues.
> >
> > First, it took so long nobody ran it; so shorten the extent
> > count by a factor of about 100.
> >
> > Having fixed that, we see failures in 2 cases; when start or
> > len is -1, but the golden output file didn't have error
> > output, as if they should pass.
> >
> > I'm going to argue that these *should* both fail; start = -1
> > has no real meaning. length = -1 might mean "the rest
> > of the file" but if that's what you really want, just
> > don't specify -l.
> >
> > So add failure output for those cases.
> >
> > Send all command output to $seq.full, in case that changes
> > in the future; just capture the return value.
> >
> > Then remove the return value echo on failure (50?) because
> > who knows when that might change to some other magic value.
> >
> > Ok, then when defrag actually works, old defrag returned
> > "20" (because?) but a recent commit changed it to 0.
> > So accommodate that too.
> >
> > And remove a stray "HAVE_DEFRAG=1" while we're at it.
> > That variable is never used.
> >
>
> So should I be seeing failures with
> btrfs-progs-0.20-0.2.git91d9eec.el6.x86_64 installed?
>
> ./check btrfs/284
> FSTYP -- btrfs
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 cxfsxe4 3.9.0+
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdk2
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdk2 /mnt/scratch
>
> btrfs/284 - output mismatch (see
> /usr/src/rcj/xfstests/results/btrfs/284.out.bad)
> --- tests/btrfs/284.out 2013-05-14 09:31:35.000000000 -0500
> +++ /usr/src/rcj/xfstests/results/btrfs/284.out.bad 2013-05-14
> 10:10:45.000000000 -0500
> @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@
> btrfs filesystem defragment failed!
> a single file | start > file size && 0 < len < file size | off
> a single file | start = 0 && len < 0 | off (should fail)
> -btrfs filesystem defragment failed!
> a single file | start = 0 && len > file size | off
> a single file | start = 0 && 0 < len < file size | off
> a directory | default | off
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/284.out
> /usr/src/rcj/xfstests/results/btrfs/284.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
> Ran: btrfs/284
> Failures: btrfs/284
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>
Yeah defrag used to spit out a return value on success, that has been fixed
recently. This patch looks good, I just ran it on my box and it ran fine, you
can add
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Thanks,
Josef
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-14 20:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-26 18:45 [PATCH] xfstests btrfs/284: shorten duration, fix output Eric Sandeen
2013-04-26 18:45 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-05-14 15:19 ` Rich Johnston
2013-05-14 15:19 ` Rich Johnston
2013-05-14 17:38 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-05-14 17:38 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-05-14 20:42 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2013-05-14 20:42 ` Josef Bacik
2013-05-15 1:42 ` Liu Bo
2013-05-15 1:42 ` Liu Bo
2013-05-15 12:30 ` Rich Johnston
2013-05-15 12:30 ` Rich Johnston
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130514204201.GC1765@localhost.localdomain \
--to=jbacik@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=rjohnston@sgi.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.