Re: [PATCH] ceph/005: verify correct statfs behaviour with quotas

[David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>]

Hi Luís,

It looks like this one is still in need of review...

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:34:09 +0100, Luís Henriques wrote:

> When using a directory with 'max_bytes' quota as a base for a mount,
> statfs shall use that 'max_bytes' value as the total disk size.  That
> value shall be used even when using subdirectory as base for the mount.
> 
> A bug was found where, when this subdirectory also had a 'max_files'
> quota, the real filesystem size would be returned instead of the parent
> 'max_bytes' quota value.  This test case verifies this bug is fixed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
> ---
>  tests/ceph/005     | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tests/ceph/005.out |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100755 tests/ceph/005
>  create mode 100644 tests/ceph/005.out
> 
> diff --git a/tests/ceph/005 b/tests/ceph/005
> new file mode 100755
> index 000000000000..0763a235a677
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/ceph/005
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +#! /bin/bash
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +# Copyright (C) 2022 SUSE Linux Products GmbH. All Rights Reserved.
> +#
> +# FS QA Test 005
> +#
> +# Make sure statfs reports correct total size when:
> +# 1. using a directory with 'max_byte' quota as base for a mount
> +# 2. using a subdirectory of the above directory with 'max_files' quota
> +#
> +. ./common/preamble
> +_begin_fstest auto quick quota
> +
> +_supported_fs generic
> +_require_scratch
> +
> +_scratch_mount
> +mkdir -p $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir/subdir
> +
> +# set quotas
> +quota=$((1024*10000))
> +$SETFATTR_PROG -n ceph.quota.max_bytes -v $quota $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir
> +$SETFATTR_PROG -n ceph.quota.max_files -v $quota $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir/subdir
> +_scratch_unmount
> +
> +SCRATCH_DEV=$SCRATCH_DEV/quota-dir _scratch_mount

Aside from the standard please-quote-your-variables gripe, I'm a little
confused with the use of SCRATCH_DEV for this test. Network FSes where
mkfs isn't provided don't generally use it. Is there any way that this
could be run against TEST_DEV, or does the umount / mount complicate
things too much?

Cheers, David