From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A57E7361DB8; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 16:49:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772642988; cv=none; b=c+K9XfuJkAlMEX5vSka1PESuaA5Ep3XBRCbuWbroYm7ftOm6JfOLk/Q0zSRxfwt6825rEtbOn+zem+eVemhVcDcK2r0Iyco/HWM1wtU0xTnCG45L+FlhkMGON0C6U1HnPtRWk703FY7HSRIurLDQ2jj8lz3BpJE7+l/RGm5CTUc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772642988; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zqrzxr1MA8BzlrUKvBCJrNGlu7J1lpLLID3A02GKxfk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=j1uk4u0JeTk8KcU+kQLykJfM/FAYl/xCx3yXOc4+aouck7PCzF7aKYtSRmhn2nHvUTbJ1nYV4RhiJLv2aRCaVPE3AgOB5lTE1SDPjfob0uaiTLj+J6lBrFL2Kco2AAI09sTXChp5BEvqL7qrf8CfD2V63a+wduapKv1cm6p/os4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=HBZ2uYlY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="HBZ2uYlY" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E782C4CEF7; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 16:49:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1772642988; bh=zqrzxr1MA8BzlrUKvBCJrNGlu7J1lpLLID3A02GKxfk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HBZ2uYlY/PN5t2rnhIqi0RZojzcYf+Vzvdqya9uYo1D0XnfIS7zt1liSpuX2V+yAF aTF7uvB7oIM5raF1t5tOyrYltww8jmbogf4A2+Jq4wnnCsezUOqaOEp7pEqwskc7IM gtPpVGMF5B0NrI34G6o4nHU2nrYwBHjDGcDVC1CEvtn72rS/9qKm6t7Wf+qb6p3ZzZ CjMutR84DfOqG1LS5eqSr+WI3VbXfvUOPOyw6VvMwQJdXMJ/PMb2WlsOGFlWFTtF4L 6JyGrkU+fovY/91P2lOMVNoCwt7ybE8ztMzTliKakttHZRmaQ+TmFI0mq1mrSSDWxr +gKZzFc0S0F4Q== Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 08:49:47 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: zlang@kernel.org, luca.dimaio1@gmail.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/841: create a block device that must exist Message-ID: <20260304164947.GX57948@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260202085701.343099-1-hch@lst.de> <20260303175300.GT57948@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260304125502.GA13048@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260304125502.GA13048@lst.de> On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 09:53:00AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 09:57:01AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > This test currently creates a block device node for /dev/ram0, > > > which isn't guaranteed to exist, and can thus cause the test to > > > fail with: > > > > > > mkfs.xfs: cannot open $TEST_DIR/proto/blockdev: No such device or address > > > > > > Instead, create a node for the backing device for $TEST_DIR, which must > > > exist. > > > > Hrm. I'm still noticing regressions with this test, particularly when > > the blocksize of the test filesystem is different from the block size > > of the $IMG_FILE filesystem. > > That is with the test in general, and not because of the block device > fix, right? Your description seems to indicate that, I'm just a bit > confused as it is replying to my incremental patch. Correct, I'm just complaining about x841 in general. Your bdev fix eliminated one of the sources of test failures. > > So I started looking for fsblock discrepancies between > > xfs_reproducible_test.img.[1-3] and noticed that EOF block contents are > > different if the file being copied in has sparse holes in it that are > > not aligned to the fsblock size of the new filesystem. > > Oooh. > > > Next, the region at 3k causes mkfs to re-call libxfs_file_write, but > > this time it writes 3072 bytes of zeroes and 1024 bytes of copied-in > > data, thus obliterating the first write. > > > > That bug's on me, > > Yeah. > > > > and I'll fix it in writefile by rounding data_pos and > > hole_pos outward as needed to be aligned to the block size of the copied > > in filesystem. And I'll update xfs/841 to compare $PROTO_DIR against > > what's in the new filesystem. > > > > That fixes the data corruption problem, but then the test still fails > > because now the space map isn't the same between mkfs invocations. > > Aarg. But I'm glad we got a test for this feature that's uncovering > old buggy/sloppy libxfs code.. Yeah. I missed the detail that none of the existing protofile tests actually tried to import sparse files, let alone checked the results. I'll try to send the fix patches in a bit but QA blew up last night so I should probably go figure out why there's suddenly log corruption, or if some cloud thing got really FUBARd at 17:08 last night. --D