Re: [PATCH] xfs: change return value check to golden image check

[Zirong Lang <zlang@redhat.com>]

----- 原始邮件 -----
> 发件人: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@sandeen.net>
> 收件人: "Zirong Lang" <zlang@redhat.com>, "Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>
> 抄送: fstests@vger.kernel.org, eguan@redhat.com
> 发送时间: 星期六, 2016年 2 月 20日 上午 12:35:08
> 主题: Re: [PATCH] xfs: change return value check to golden image check
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/19/16 9:58 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/19/16 9:35 AM, Zirong Lang wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- 原始邮件 -----
> >>> 发件人: "Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>
> >>> 收件人: "Zorro Lang" <zlang@redhat.com>
> >>> 抄送: fstests@vger.kernel.org, eguan@redhat.com
> >>> 发送时间: 星期五, 2016年 2 月 19日 上午 9:33:16
> >>> 主题: Re: [PATCH] xfs: change return value check to golden image check
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:37:36AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> >>>> xfs/133 and xfs/138 use too much code to do "return value" check,
> >>>> it's not necessary. For the code can be more readable and clear,
> >>>> I change "return value" check to golden image check.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  tests/xfs/133     | 20 +++++++-------------
> >>>>  tests/xfs/133.out |  7 +++++++
> >>>>  tests/xfs/138     | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
> >>>>  tests/xfs/138.out | 12 ++++++++++++
> >>>>  4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> This cause a xfs/133 failure like this on my systems:
> >>>
> >>> --- tests/xfs/133.out   2016-02-19 10:40:57.043131919 +1100
> >>> +++ /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/133.out.bad
> >>> 2016-02-19
> >>> 12:24:53.173589432 +1100
> >>> @@ -4,5 +4,6 @@
> >>>  Filesystem Blocks Quota Limit Warn/Time Mounted on
> >>>  SCRATCH_DEV 0 102400 204800 00 [--------] SCRATCH_MNT
> >>>  === report command output ===
> >>> +(null) 0 0 0 00 [--------]
> > 
> > I need to dig, but this may be a result of GETNEXTQUOTA additions to
> > xfs_quota.
> > 
> > We can now find IDs on disk that don't exist in the user database, and
> > we would not have reported them before.
> > 
> > Perhaps change the test to report ids not names, to debug it and see
> > which one it is finding?
> > 
> > I'm guessing it's ID 0, but I have to think about whether that's correct
> > to show or not...
> 
> Ok, with Zorro's help, we see that this is a result of GETNEXTQUOTA.
> 
> With that in place, "report" shows all active quotas, skipping only
> if XFS_IS_DQUOT_UNINITIALIZED().  But project ID 0 has 4 inodes
> accounted for:
> 
> # xfs_db -c "dquot -p 0" -c print /dev/...
> ...
> diskdq.bcount = 0
> diskdq.icount = 4
> diskdq.itimer = 0
> diskdq.btimer = 0
> ...
> 
> We never reported ID 0 before, because it was not in the projects file.
> But it looks active, so GETNEXTQUOTA finds and returns it now.
> 
> I'm not actually sure what the best way is to fix this; I was even on
> the fence about using GETNEXTQUOTA for project quotas at all, because
> we always have a local file of projects to iterate anyway.
> 
> We could explicitly look up id 0 and not show it if it's not in the
> projects file.
> 
> We could not use GETNEXTQUOTA in the kernel for project quotas.
> 
> We could skip printing id 0 altogether in xfs_quota
> 
> We could filter it out in the test ...

Maybe the pquota 0 problem will effect other cases except xfs/133 (maybe not,
I haven't tested that). So if we think it's a case problem, we need to check
all cases which report/query xfs project quota.

So I should wait for the decision about how to deal with GETNEXTQUOTA on project quota.

Thanks,
Zorro

> 
> -Eric
>