[PATCH] fstests: generic/260: don't fail for certain fstrim ops on btrfs

[PATCH] fstests: generic/260: don't fail for certain fstrim ops on btrfs

[Josef Bacik]

We have always failed generic/260, because it tests to see if the file
system will reject a trim range that is above the reported fs size.
However for btrfs we will happily remap logical byte offsets within the
file system, so you can end up with bye offsets past the end of the
reported end of the file system.  Thus we do not fail these weird
ranges.  We also don't have the concept of allocation groups, so the
other test that tries to catch overflow doesn't apply to us either.  Fix
this by simply using an offset that will fail (once a related kernel
path is applied) for btrfs.  This will allow us to test the different
overflow cases that do apply to btrfs, and not muddy up test results by
giving us a false negative for the cases that do not apply to btrfs.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
---
 tests/generic/260 | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tests/generic/260 b/tests/generic/260
index b15b4e57..b4d72e0f 100755
--- a/tests/generic/260
+++ b/tests/generic/260
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ fssize=$($DF_PROG -k | grep "$SCRATCH_MNT" | grep "$SCRATCH_DEV"  | awk '{print
 
 beyond_eofs=$(_math "$fssize*2048")
 max_64bit=$(_math "2^64 - 1")
+[ $FSTYP == "btrfs" ] && beyond_eofs=$max_64bit
 
 # All these tests should return EINVAL
 # since the start is beyond the end of
@@ -128,6 +129,12 @@ case $FSTYP in
 		len=$start
 		export MKFS_OPTIONS="-f -d agsize=$(_math "$agsize*$bsize") -b size=$bsize"
 		;;
+	btrfs)
+		# Btrfs doesn't care about any of this, just test max_64bit
+		# since it'll fail
+		start=$max_64bit
+		len=$(_math "$start / 2")
+		;;
 	*)
 		# (2^32-1) * 4096 * 65536 == 32bit max size * block size * ag size
 		start=$(_math "(2^32 - 1) * 4096 * 65536")
-- 
2.26.3

Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic/260: don't fail for certain fstrim ops on btrfs

[Eryu Guan]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:08:10PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We have always failed generic/260, because it tests to see if the file
> system will reject a trim range that is above the reported fs size.
> However for btrfs we will happily remap logical byte offsets within the
> file system, so you can end up with bye offsets past the end of the
> reported end of the file system.  Thus we do not fail these weird
> ranges.  We also don't have the concept of allocation groups, so the
> other test that tries to catch overflow doesn't apply to us either.  Fix
> this by simply using an offset that will fail (once a related kernel
> path is applied) for btrfs.  This will allow us to test the different
> overflow cases that do apply to btrfs, and not muddy up test results by
> giving us a false negative for the cases that do not apply to btrfs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>

I'd like an ACK from btrfs folks as well.

Thanks,
Eryu

> ---
>  tests/generic/260 | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/generic/260 b/tests/generic/260
> index b15b4e57..b4d72e0f 100755
> --- a/tests/generic/260
> +++ b/tests/generic/260
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ fssize=$($DF_PROG -k | grep "$SCRATCH_MNT" | grep "$SCRATCH_DEV"  | awk '{print
>  
>  beyond_eofs=$(_math "$fssize*2048")
>  max_64bit=$(_math "2^64 - 1")
> +[ $FSTYP == "btrfs" ] && beyond_eofs=$max_64bit
>  
>  # All these tests should return EINVAL
>  # since the start is beyond the end of
> @@ -128,6 +129,12 @@ case $FSTYP in
>  		len=$start
>  		export MKFS_OPTIONS="-f -d agsize=$(_math "$agsize*$bsize") -b size=$bsize"
>  		;;
> +	btrfs)
> +		# Btrfs doesn't care about any of this, just test max_64bit
> +		# since it'll fail
> +		start=$max_64bit
> +		len=$(_math "$start / 2")
> +		;;
>  	*)
>  		# (2^32-1) * 4096 * 65536 == 32bit max size * block size * ag size
>  		start=$(_math "(2^32 - 1) * 4096 * 65536")
> -- 
> 2.26.3

Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic/260: don't fail for certain fstrim ops on btrfs

[David Sterba]

On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:19:50PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:08:10PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > We have always failed generic/260, because it tests to see if the file
> > system will reject a trim range that is above the reported fs size.
> > However for btrfs we will happily remap logical byte offsets within the
> > file system, so you can end up with bye offsets past the end of the
> > reported end of the file system.  Thus we do not fail these weird
> > ranges.  We also don't have the concept of allocation groups, so the
> > other test that tries to catch overflow doesn't apply to us either.  Fix
> > this by simply using an offset that will fail (once a related kernel
> > path is applied) for btrfs.  This will allow us to test the different
> > overflow cases that do apply to btrfs, and not muddy up test results by
> > giving us a false negative for the cases that do not apply to btrfs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> 
> I'd like an ACK from btrfs folks as well.

Ack.