From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F390C433E0 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 05:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B2F2067D for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 05:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728398AbgGOFkF (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 01:40:05 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:37656 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727951AbgGOFkF (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 01:40:05 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,354,1589212800"; d="scan'208";a="96369343" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2020 13:39:55 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXMBPEKD06.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.206]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B444CE544C; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:39:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.167.220.69] (10.167.220.69) by G08CNEXMBPEKD06.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:39:55 +0800 Message-ID: <5F0E96A8.2010705@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:39:52 +0800 From: Xiao Yang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.2; zh-CN; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ira Weiny CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/7] generic: Verify the inheritance behavior of FS_XFLAG_DAX flag in various combinations References: <20200714094009.8654-1-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200714094009.8654-8-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200715024838.GI3008823@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20200715024838.GI3008823@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.220.69] X-ClientProxiedBy: G08CNEXCHPEKD06.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.205) To G08CNEXMBPEKD06.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.206) X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: A7B444CE544C.AD494 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On 2020/7/15 10:48, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 05:40:09PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang >> --- >> tests/generic/605 | 199 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/generic/605.out | 2 + >> tests/generic/group | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 202 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tests/generic/605 >> create mode 100644 tests/generic/605.out >> >> diff --git a/tests/generic/605 b/tests/generic/605 >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000..6924223a >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/generic/605 >> @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@ >> +#! /bin/bash >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +# Copyright (c) 2020 Fujitsu. All Rights Reserved. >> +# >> +# FS QA Test 605 >> +# >> +# Verify the inheritance behavior of FS_XFLAG_DAX flag in various combinations. >> +# 1) New files and directories automatically inherit FS_XFLAG_DAX from their parent directory. >> +# 2) cp operation make files and directories inherit the FS_XFLAG_DAX from new parent directory. >> +# 3) mv operation make files and directories preserve the FS_XFLAG_DAX from old parent directory. >> +# In addition, setting/clearing FS_XFLAG_DAX flag is not impacted by dax mount options. >> + >> +seq=`basename $0` >> +seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq >> +echo "QA output created by $seq" >> + >> +here=`pwd` >> +tmp=/tmp/$$ >> +status=1 # failure is the default! >> +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15 >> + >> +_cleanup() >> +{ >> + cd / >> + rm -f $tmp.* >> +} >> + >> +# get standard environment, filters and checks >> +. ./common/rc >> +. ./common/filter >> + >> +# remove previous $seqres.full before test >> +rm -f $seqres.full >> + >> +_supported_fs generic >> +_supported_os Linux >> +_require_scratch >> +_require_dax_iflag >> +_require_xfs_io_command "lsattr" "-v" >> + >> +check_xflag() >> +{ >> + local target=$1 >> + local exp_xflag=$2 >> + >> + if [ $exp_xflag -eq 0 ]; then >> + _test_inode_flag dax $target&& echo "$target has unexpected FS_XFLAG_DAX flag" >> + else >> + _test_inode_flag dax $target || echo "$target doen't have expected FS_XFLAG_DAX flag" >> + fi >> +} >> + >> +test_xflag_inheritance1() >> +{ >> + mkdir -p a >> + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a >> + mkdir -p a/b/c >> + touch a/b/c/d >> + >> + check_xflag a 1 >> + check_xflag a/b 1 >> + check_xflag a/b/c 1 >> + check_xflag a/b/c/d 1 >> + >> + rm -rf a >> +} >> + >> +test_xflag_inheritance2() >> +{ >> + mkdir -p a/b >> + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a >> + mkdir -p a/b/c a/d >> + touch a/b/c/e a/d/f >> + >> + check_xflag a 1 >> + check_xflag a/b 0 >> + check_xflag a/b/c 0 >> + check_xflag a/b/c/e 0 >> + check_xflag a/d 1 >> + check_xflag a/d/f 1 >> + >> + rm -rf a >> +} >> + >> +test_xflag_inheritance3() >> +{ >> + mkdir -p a/b >> + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a/b >> + mkdir -p a/b/c a/d >> + touch a/b/c/e a/d/f >> + >> + check_xflag a 0 >> + check_xflag a/b 1 >> + check_xflag a/b/c 1 >> + check_xflag a/b/c/e 1 >> + check_xflag a/d 0 >> + check_xflag a/d/f 0 >> + >> + rm -rf a >> +} > It really seems like 2 and 3 test the same thing? Hi Ira, 2 constructs the following steps: 1) a is the parent directory of b 2) a doesn't have xflag and b has xflag 3) touch many directories/files in a and b 3 constructs the following steps: 1) a is the parent directory of b and b is the parent directory of c 2) a and c have xflag, and b doesn't have xflag 3) touch many directories/files in b and c Do you think they are same? I can remove one if you think so. >> + >> +test_xflag_inheritance4() >> +{ >> + mkdir -p a >> + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a >> + mkdir -p a/b/c >> + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr -x" a/b >> + mkdir -p a/b/c/d a/b/e >> + touch a/b/c/d/f a/b/e/g >> + >> + check_xflag a 1 >> + check_xflag a/b 0 >> + check_xflag a/b/c 1 >> + check_xflag a/b/c/d 1 >> + check_xflag a/b/c/d/f 1 >> + check_xflag a/b/e 0 >> + check_xflag a/b/e/g 0 >> + >> + rm -rf a >> +} >> + >> +test_xflag_inheritance5() >> +{ >> + mkdir -p a b >> + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a >> + mkdir -p a/c a/d b/e b/f >> + touch a/g b/h >> + >> + cp -r a/c b/ >> + cp -r b/e a/ >> + cp -r a/g b/ >> + mv a/d b/ >> + mv b/f a/ >> + mv b/h a/ >> + >> + check_xflag b/c 0 >> + check_xflag b/d 1 >> + check_xflag a/e 1 >> + check_xflag a/f 0 >> + check_xflag b/g 0 >> + check_xflag a/h 0 >> + >> + rm -rf a b >> +} >> + >> +do_xflag_tests() >> +{ >> + local option=$1 >> + >> + _scratch_mount "$option" >> + cd $SCRATCH_MNT >> + >> + for i in $(seq 1 5); do >> + test_xflag_inheritance${i} >> + done >> + >> + cd -> /dev/null >> + _scratch_unmount >> +} >> + >> +check_dax_mountopt() >> +{ >> + local option=$1 >> + local ret=0 >> + >> + _try_scratch_mount "-o $option">> $seqres.full 2>&1 || return 1 >> + >> + # Match option name exactly >> + _fs_options $SCRATCH_DEV | egrep -q "$option(,|$)" || ret=1 >> + >> + _scratch_unmount >> + >> + return $ret >> +} > Should this be a common function? I am not sure if it should be a common function, because it may not be used by other tests in future. I also consider to merge the function into _require_scratch_dax_mountopt(). >> + >> +do_tests() >> +{ >> + # Mount without dax option >> + do_xflag_tests >> + >> + # Mount with old dax option if fs only supports it. >> + check_dax_mountopt "dax"&& do_xflag_tests "-o dax" > I don't understand the order here. If we are on an older kernel and the FS > only supports '-o dax' the do_xflag_tests will fail won't it? With both old dax and new dax, the inheritance behavior of FS_XFLAG_DAX works well. > So shouldn't we do this first and bail/'not run' this test if that is the case? > > I really don't think there is any point in testing the old XFS behavior because > the FS_XFLAG_DAX had no effect. So even if it is broken it does not matter. > Or perhaps I am missing something here? This test is designed to verify the inheritance behavior of FS_XFLAG_DAX(not related to S_DAX) so I think it is fine for both old dax and new dax to run the test. Best Regards, Xiao Yang > Ira > >> + >> + # Mount with new dax options if fs supports them. >> + if check_dax_mountopt "dax=always"; then >> + for dax_option in "dax=always" "dax=inode" "dax=never"; do >> + do_xflag_tests "-o $dax_option" >> + done >> + fi >> +} >> + >> +_scratch_mkfs>> $seqres.full 2>&1 >> + >> +do_tests >> + >> +# success, all done >> +echo "Silence is golden" >> +status=0 >> +exit >> diff --git a/tests/generic/605.out b/tests/generic/605.out >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000..1ae20049 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/generic/605.out >> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ >> +QA output created by 605 >> +Silence is golden >> diff --git a/tests/generic/group b/tests/generic/group >> index 676e0d2e..a8451862 100644 >> --- a/tests/generic/group >> +++ b/tests/generic/group >> @@ -607,3 +607,4 @@ >> 602 auto quick encrypt >> 603 auto attr quick dax >> 604 auto attr quick dax >> +605 auto attr quick dax >> -- >> 2.21.0 >> >> >> > > . >