Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fstests: btrfs: Use _require_btrfs_qgroup_report to replace open code

[Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:12:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Introduce new _require_btrfs_qgroup_report function, which will check
> the accessibility to "btrfs check --qgroup-report", then set a global
> flag to info _check_scratch_fs() to do extra qgroup check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> v2:
>   Use "${RESULT_DIR}/require_scratch.require_qgroup_report" instead of
>   global variant
>   Rebased to latest master
>   Replace btrfsck with $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG check.
[snip]
> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/042 b/tests/btrfs/042
> index 498ccc9..dc9b762 100755
> --- a/tests/btrfs/042
> +++ b/tests/btrfs/042
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ _cleanup()
>  _supported_fs btrfs
>  _supported_os Linux
>  _require_scratch
> +_require_btrfs_qgroup_report
>  
>  rm -f $seqres.full
>  
> @@ -84,10 +85,7 @@ for i in `seq 10 -1 1`; do
>  	total_written=$(($total_written+$filesize))
>  done
>  
> -#check if total written exceeds limit
> -if [ $total_written -gt $LIMIT_SIZE ];then
> -	_fail "total written should be less than $LIMIT_SIZE"
> -fi
> +# qgroup will be checked automatically at _check_scratch_fs() by fstest

This doesn't look like an equivalent replacement, and btrfs/042 fails
for me after this update (wrong qgroup numbers) on 4.9-rc4 kernel. Is
this change intentional?

Thanks,
Eryu