From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: Updated test case Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:42:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20100822114228.GB6329@thunk.org> References: <20100821201146.GF10450@thunk.org> <4C7071EA.3040503@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:40038 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752059Ab0HVLmy (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:42:54 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C7071EA.3040503@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 07:40:10PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I'll send an xfstest but it'd be really great if could could work > inside the xfstests framework when devising testcases... If you could put together an xfstests, that would be great. I hadn't because Mike's been trying to remind me that I really need to delegate to others :-), and we do have someone at Google who can put the xfstest script together. You can probably do it faster than he can, though. I didn't use xfs_io because I don't know how to use it, and because it's not one of those things which is regularly on our production machines that we use for testing. I probably start exploring all of the things that can be done with it, though! > Ted, is just checking for fs corruption is enough or do you think a > test needs the debugfs stat inspection step? It'd be easy enough > to special-case a debugfs step for ext4. Well, if we end up suppressing the EOFBLOCKS_FL test e2fsck (which is what we've already done as an emergency workaround) we can't count on e2fsck detecting the problem, which is why I phrased this the way I did for Aditya's benefit. > > What I normally do is run it something like this: > > > > mount /scratch ; pushd /scratch; ~/testcase ; popd ; umount /scratch ; debugfs /dev/sdc1 -R "stat test-file" > > > > What to look for is whether the flags field is either 0x480000 or > > 0x80000. The 0x400000 flag is the EOFBLOCKS_FL flag. If last extent > > is uninitialized, then the EOFBLOCKS_FL flag should be set. > > only if that last extent is past i_size, though... Good point, and I guess I did have at least one test case where that wasn't true. - Ted