Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs/533: fix golden output for this test

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 05:31:01AM +0000, xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com wrote:
> 
> 
> on  2022/08/04 13:15, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 10:06:16PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 01:53:31AM +0000, xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >>> on 2022/08/03 12:21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >>>> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure what's up with this new test, but the golden output isn't right
> >>>> for upstream xfsprogs for-next.  Change it to pass there...
> >>>
> >>> It failed becuase libxfs code validates v5 feature fields.
> >>>
> >>> b12d5ae5d ("xfs: validate v5 feature fields")
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    tests/xfs/533.out |    2 +-
> >>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/533.out b/tests/xfs/533.out
> >>>> index 7deb78a3..439fb16e 100644
> >>>> --- a/tests/xfs/533.out
> >>>> +++ b/tests/xfs/533.out
> >>>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> >>>>    QA output created by 533
> >>>>    Allowing write of corrupted data with good CRC
> >>>>    magicnum = 0
> >>>> -bad magic number
> >>
> >> Ohhh, so this is a V4 output.
> >>
> >>>> +Superblock has bad magic number 0x0. Not an XFS filesystem?
> >>>
> >>> Since this case is designed to detect xfs_db bug, should we filter the
> >>> output?
> >>
> >> Yep.  I'll rework this patch to handle V4 and V5.  Well, thanks for
> >> keeping me on my toes! ;)
> > 
> > Hmm, V4 produces this:
> > 
> > --- /tmp/fstests/tests/xfs/533.out      2022-08-02 19:02:12.876335795 -0700
> > +++ /var/tmp/fstests/xfs/533.out.bad    2022-08-03 22:12:43.596000000 -0700
> > @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
> >   QA output created by 533
> > -Allowing write of corrupted data with good CRC
> >   magicnum = 0
> > -Superblock has bad magic number 0x0. Not an XFS filesystem?
> >   0
> > 
> > So I guess this isn't a V4 output.  Which version of xfsprogs and what
> > MKFS_OPTIONS did you use to make this to produce 'bad magic number'?
> 
> I remember I used xfsprogs master branch and I don't add any special 
> MKFS_OPTIONS.
> 
> meta-data=/dev/sda7              isize=512    agcount=4, agsize=3276800 blks
>           =                       sectsz=4096  attr=2, projid32bit=1
>           =                       crc=1        finobt=1, sparse=1, rmapbt=0
>           =                       reflink=1    bigtime=1 inobtcount=1
> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=13107200, imaxpct=25
>           =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
> naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0, ftype=1
> log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=16384, version=2
>           =                       sectsz=4096  sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
> realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
> 
> local.config
> MODULAR=0
> export TEST_DIR=/mnt/xfstests/test
> export TEST_DEV=/dev/sda6
> export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/xfstests/scratch
> export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sda7
> 
> I have mentioned that xfsprogs commit b12d5ae5d ("xfs: validate v5 
> feature fields")  will change output to "-Superblock has bad magic 
> number 0x0. Not an XFS filesystem". And this commit is belong to 
> for-next branch that is why I write this case doesn't find this because 
> I use master branch that time.

Ah, sorry, I missed your mention of this commit.  Ok, so the test was
based on master (aka xfsprogs 5.18) and my corrections are based on
for-next (future xfsprogs 5.19).

Yes, I think the correct fix here is to filter the new output to match
the old.  I might throw in a _require_scratch_xfs_crc so this test
doesn't fail on (deprecated) V4 setups.

--D

> Best Regards
> Yang Xu
> > 
> > --D
> > 
> >> --D
> >>
> >>> Best Regards
> >>> Yang Xu
> >>>>    0
> >>>>