From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:56596 "EHLO mail-ig0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753642AbaIVKHG (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:07:06 -0400 Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id l13so2383848iga.6 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <541FF4C5.3030005@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:07:01 -0400 From: nick MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Qu Wenruo CC: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: XFS Tests for Btrfs References: <541B3D0C.4040004@gmail.com> <541B8215.9080301@cn.fujitsu.com> <541B8430.7040000@gmail.com> <541B8993.1000604@cn.fujitsu.com> <541B89E0.5010905@gmail.com> <541B8AFC.5040208@cn.fujitsu.com> <541B8C90.7030503@gmail.com> <541B90C8.60806@cn.fujitsu.com> <541B9591.7040509@gmail.com> <541B9680.5020309@cn.fujitsu.com> <541B9783.2020609@gmail.com> <541B98EE.1070908@cn.fujitsu.com> <541C0A4D.80501@gmail.com> <541FDB2A.6060706@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <541FDB2A.6060706@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 14-09-22 04:17 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: XFS Tests for Btrfs > From: nick > To: Qu Wenruo > Date: 2014年09月19日 18:49 >> >> On 14-09-18 10:46 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: XFS Tests for Btrfs >>> From: nick >>> To: Qu Wenruo >>> Date: 2014年09月19日 10:40 >>>> [snip] >>>>>> Sorry Qu,ur local _scratch_mkfs routine ... >>>>>> Error: unable to open /dev/sdc: Device or resource busy >>>>>> check: failed to mkfs $SCRATCH_DEV using specified options >>>>>> Passed all 0 tests >>>>>> Is happening to me now. How do I fix this ? >>>>>> Nick >>>>>> >>>>> Full local.conf please. >>>>> >>>>> Also lsblk output is needed. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Qu >>>> Thank for the Help Qu, >>>> Here is the output of lsblk: >>>> NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT >>>> sda 8:0 0 111.8G 0 disk >>>> └─sda1 8:1 0 111.8G 0 part / >>>> sdb 8:16 0 465.8G 0 disk >>>> ├─sdb1 8:17 0 7.6G 0 part [SWAP] >>>> └─sdb2 8:18 0 458.1G 0 part /home >>>> sdc 8:32 0 931.5G 0 disk >>>> └─sdc1 8:33 0 931.5G 0 part >>>> sr0 11:0 1 1024M 0 rom >>>> # Ideally define at least these 4 to match your environment >>>> # The first 2 are required. >>>> # See README for other variables which can be set. >>>> # >>>> # Note: SCRATCH_DEV >will< get overwritten! >>>> >>>> export TEST_DEV=/dev/sdX1 >>>> export TEST_DIR=/mnt/test >>>> export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdX2 >>>> export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch. >>>> I am new to this so sorry for the troubles. >>>> Nick >>> Part your /dev/sdc into the following layout: >>> sdc >>> sdc5 40G <- Use as TEST_DEV >>> sdc6 15G >>> sdc7 15G >>> sdc8 15G >>> sdc9 15G >>> >>> then >>> # mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdc5 >>> # mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdc[6-9] >>> # mkdir -p /mnt/test >>> # mkdir -p /mnt/scratch >>> >>> >>> then write your local.conf like the following: >>> export FSTYP=btrfs >>> export TEST_DEV=/dev/sdc5 >>> export TEST_MNT=/mnt/test >>> export SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/sdc6 /dev/sdc7 /dev/sdc8 /dev/sdc9" >>> export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch >>> >>> Then, you should be able to run ./check -g auto. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Qu >> I got three failing tests now, would you like me to post the logs. >> Nick > There are some tests that are already known to fail but not bugs or already fixed. > > As far as I can tell, if using 3.17-rc1, > btrfs/010, btrfs/047, btrfs/054 are always failure under all mount options. > btrfs/010 is somewhat outdated, since kernel now disables defrage with subvolume, so it will never pass. > btrfs/047 and btrfs/054, as you can see in the comments of these tests, it's already fixed. > Maybe next release or later RCs. > > Generic/015 and generic/027 will sometims fail using nodatasum/nodatacow/compress=lzo mount options > Also generic/275 will sometimes fail with compress=lzo, none of them is bug. > Some btrfs features or designs make them not pass. > > Geneirc/018 will always fails with nodatacow mount option, but the patch is already sent. > > So if you encounters other bugs, I'll be happen to see the failed test number and test log. > > BTW, as I mentioned, different mount options may cause different test results, > so it's high recommended to run xfstest against all supported mount options. > > Thanks, > Qu > > Qu, I will run the tests later and see if any of them are failing beside the ones you mentioned. Nick