Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] xfstests: minor fixes for the reflink/dedupe tests

Darrick J. Wong
2016-07-13T05:28:58Z

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:31:30PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> Hi Darrick,
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:46:02PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is the sixth revision of a patchset that adds to xfstests
> > support for testing reverse-mappings of physical blocks to file and
> > metadata (rmap); support for testing multiple file logical blocks to
> > the same physical block (reflink); and implements the beginnings of
> > online metadata scrubbing.
> >
> > The first eight patches are in Eryu Guan's pull request on 2016-06-15.
> > Those patches haven't changed, but they're not yet in the upstream
> > repo.
> >
> > If you're going to start using this mess, you probably ought to just
> > pull from my github trees for kernel[1], xfsprogs[2], and xfstests[3].
> > There are also updates for xfs-docs[4]. The kernel patches should
> > apply to dchinner's for-next; xfsprogs patches to for-next; and
> > xfstest to master. The kernel git tree already has for-next included.
> >
> > The patches have been xfstested with x64, i386, and armv7l--arm64,
> > ppc64, and ppc64le no longer boot in qemu. All three architectures
> > pass all 'clone' group tests except xfs/128 (which is the swapext
> > test), and AFAICT don't cause any new failures for the 'auto' group.
> >
> > This is an extraordinary way to eat your data. Enjoy!
> > Comments and questions are, as always, welcome.
>
> I tested your xfstests patches with your kernel(HEAD f0b34b6 xfs: add
> btree scrub tracepoints) and xfsprogs(HEAD 34bd754 xfs_scrub: create
> online filesystem scrub program), with x86_64 host & 4k block size XFS.
>
> A './check -g auto' run looked fine overall. Besides the comments I
> replied to some patches, other common minor issues are:
> - space indention in _cleanup not tab
> - bare 'umount $SCRATCH_MNT' not _scratch_unmount
> - whitespace issues in _test|scratch_inject_error
>
> (I can fix all these minor issues at commit time, if you don't have
> other major updates to these patches).
>
> And the review of changes to xfs/122 needs help from other XFS
> developers :) (09/20 and 10/20)
>
> And besides the first 8 patches, 15/20 has been in upstream as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Eryu
>
> P.S.
> The failed tests I saw when testing with reflink-enabled kernel &
> xfsprogs:
>
> Failures: generic/054 generic/055 generic/108 generic/204 generic/356 generic/357 xfs/004 xfs/096 xfs/122 xfs/293
>
> generic/108 generic/204 and xfs/004 are new failures compared to stock
> kernel and xfsprogs (kernel 4.7-rc5, xfsprogs 4.7-rc1).
>
> Just FYI.

Thanks for doing this. I'm seeing some of the same failures you are,
and will fix them up in the next patch bundle.

--D