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

Eryu Guan
2016-07-05T04:31:32Z

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.