* Failure of xfstests test case 202 @ 2011-06-10 20:39 Chandra Seetharaman 2011-06-10 21:19 ` Christoph Hellwig 2011-06-10 21:41 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-06-10 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: XFS Mailing List Hi all, Test case 202 tries to create a single AG filesystem and runs xfs_repair on it expecting it to fail. But, when I run the test with a filesystem that is bigger than 1TB it fails (not pleasantly) since the max AG size is 1TB. I am thinking of the following solution, please let me know if there is any other elegant fix. chandra ------------------------ diff --git a/202 b/202 index cbdcb57..b871d8b 100755 --- a/202 +++ b/202 @@ -42,10 +42,12 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch echo "== Creating single-AG filesystem ==" -_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 +_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 \ + || _scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 -d size=268435455b >/dev/null 2>&1 + || _fail "!!! failed to make filesystem" echo "== Trying to repair it (should fail) ==" -_scratch_xfs_repair +_scratch_xfs_repair && _fail "!!! xfs_repair of single AG filesystem succeeded" echo "== Trying to repair it with -o force_geometry ==" _scratch_xfs_repair -o force_geometry 2>&1 | _filter_repair ------------------------- _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 2011-06-10 20:39 Failure of xfstests test case 202 Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-06-10 21:19 ` Christoph Hellwig 2011-06-10 21:33 ` Chandra Seetharaman 2011-06-10 21:41 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2011-06-10 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chandra Seetharaman; +Cc: XFS Mailing List On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:39:47PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > Hi all, > > Test case 202 tries to create a single AG filesystem and runs xfs_repair > on it expecting it to fail. > > But, when I run the test with a filesystem that is bigger than 1TB it > fails (not pleasantly) since the max AG size is 1TB. > > I am thinking of the following solution, please let me know if there is > any other elegant fix. What about: # # The AG size is limited to 1TB (or even less with historic xfsprogs), # so chose a small enough filesystem to make sure we can actually create # a single AG filesystem. # _scratch_mkfs_sized `expr 1024 \* 1024 \* 1024` instead? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 2011-06-10 21:19 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2011-06-10 21:33 ` Chandra Seetharaman 2011-06-11 7:07 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-06-10 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: XFS Mailing List On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 17:19 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:39:47PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Test case 202 tries to create a single AG filesystem and runs xfs_repair > > on it expecting it to fail. > > > > But, when I run the test with a filesystem that is bigger than 1TB it > > fails (not pleasantly) since the max AG size is 1TB. > > > > I am thinking of the following solution, please let me know if there is > > any other elegant fix. > > What about: > > # > # The AG size is limited to 1TB (or even less with historic xfsprogs), > # so chose a small enough filesystem to make sure we can actually create > # a single AG filesystem. > # > _scratch_mkfs_sized `expr 1024 \* 1024 \* 1024` > > instead? Good point. Here is a solution based on your suggestion, but not using _scratch_mkfs_sized (sincein the current context we need it to take extra option, whereas _scratch_mkfs_sized takes fixed options). What do you think ? ---------------- diff --git a/202 b/202 index cbdcb57..b982956 100755 --- a/202 +++ b/202 @@ -41,11 +41,18 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch +# +# The AG size is limited to 1TB (or even less with historic xfsprogs), +# so chose a small enough filesystem to make sure we can actually create +# a single AG filesystem. +# echo "== Creating single-AG filesystem ==" -_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 +_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 -d size=$((1024*1024*1024)) >/dev/null 2>&1 \ + || _fail "!!! failed to make filesystem with single AG" echo "== Trying to repair it (should fail) ==" -_scratch_xfs_repair +_scratch_xfs_repair \ + && _fail "!!! xfs_repair of single AG filesystem succeeded. Expected to fail." echo "== Trying to repair it with -o force_geometry ==" _scratch_xfs_repair -o force_geometry 2>&1 | _filter_repair ----------------------- > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 2011-06-10 21:33 ` Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-06-11 7:07 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-06-11 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chandra Seetharaman; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, XFS Mailing List On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 02:33:44PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 17:19 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:39:47PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Test case 202 tries to create a single AG filesystem and runs xfs_repair > > > on it expecting it to fail. > > > > > > But, when I run the test with a filesystem that is bigger than 1TB it > > > fails (not pleasantly) since the max AG size is 1TB. > > > > > > I am thinking of the following solution, please let me know if there is > > > any other elegant fix. > > > > What about: > > > > # > > # The AG size is limited to 1TB (or even less with historic xfsprogs), > > # so chose a small enough filesystem to make sure we can actually create > > # a single AG filesystem. > > # > > _scratch_mkfs_sized `expr 1024 \* 1024 \* 1024` > > > > instead? > > Good point. Here is a solution based on your suggestion, but not using > _scratch_mkfs_sized (sincein the current context we need it to take > extra option, whereas _scratch_mkfs_sized takes fixed options). > > What do you think ? > > ---------------- > diff --git a/202 b/202 > index cbdcb57..b982956 100755 > --- a/202 > +++ b/202 > @@ -41,11 +41,18 @@ _supported_os Linux > > _require_scratch > > +# > +# The AG size is limited to 1TB (or even less with historic xfsprogs), > +# so chose a small enough filesystem to make sure we can actually create > +# a single AG filesystem. > +# > echo "== Creating single-AG filesystem ==" > -_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 > +_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 -d size=$((1024*1024*1024)) >/dev/null 2>&1 \ > + || _fail "!!! failed to make filesystem with single AG" Should work for most test setups. > > echo "== Trying to repair it (should fail) ==" > -_scratch_xfs_repair > +_scratch_xfs_repair \ > + && _fail "!!! xfs_repair of single AG filesystem succeeded. Expected to fail." But as I said before, this change is not necessary. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 2011-06-10 20:39 Failure of xfstests test case 202 Chandra Seetharaman 2011-06-10 21:19 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2011-06-10 21:41 ` Dave Chinner 2011-06-10 23:25 ` Chandra Seetharaman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-06-10 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chandra Seetharaman; +Cc: XFS Mailing List On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:39:47PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > Hi all, > > Test case 202 tries to create a single AG filesystem and runs xfs_repair > on it expecting it to fail. > > But, when I run the test with a filesystem that is bigger than 1TB it > fails (not pleasantly) since the max AG size is 1TB. > > I am thinking of the following solution, please let me know if there is > any other elegant fix. > > chandra > ------------------------ > diff --git a/202 b/202 > index cbdcb57..b871d8b 100755 > --- a/202 > +++ b/202 > @@ -42,10 +42,12 @@ _supported_os Linux > _require_scratch > > echo "== Creating single-AG filesystem ==" > -_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 > +_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 \ > + || _scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 -d size=268435455b >/dev/null 2>&1 > + || _fail "!!! failed to make filesystem" Why the second mkfs attempt with a fixed block size? That will still fail for block size > 4k. All you need to do is detect the first attempt failed. > > echo "== Trying to repair it (should fail) ==" > -_scratch_xfs_repair > +_scratch_xfs_repair && _fail "!!! xfs_repair of single AG filesystem > succeeded" This is not necessary - the golden image compare at the end of the test will detect this succeeding when it shoul dbe failing. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 2011-06-10 21:41 ` Dave Chinner @ 2011-06-10 23:25 ` Chandra Seetharaman 2011-06-11 6:59 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-06-10 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: XFS Mailing List On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 07:41 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:39:47PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Test case 202 tries to create a single AG filesystem and runs xfs_repair > > on it expecting it to fail. > > > > But, when I run the test with a filesystem that is bigger than 1TB it > > fails (not pleasantly) since the max AG size is 1TB. > > > > I am thinking of the following solution, please let me know if there is > > any other elegant fix. > > > > chandra > > ------------------------ > > diff --git a/202 b/202 > > index cbdcb57..b871d8b 100755 > > --- a/202 > > +++ b/202 > > @@ -42,10 +42,12 @@ _supported_os Linux > > _require_scratch > > > > echo "== Creating single-AG filesystem ==" > > -_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 > > +_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 \ > > + || _scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 -d size=268435455b >/dev/null 2>&1 > > + || _fail "!!! failed to make filesystem" > > Why the second mkfs attempt with a fixed block size? to see if the mkfs failed because the default filesystem size is too big. > That will > still fail for block size > 4k. Realized that. It should have been absolute. > All you need to do is detect the > first attempt failed. But, I didn't want the test to fail, instead want it to proceed if big filesystem was the reason for failure. By now you might have seen my response to Christoph's email. What do you think of that ? > > > > > echo "== Trying to repair it (should fail) ==" > > -_scratch_xfs_repair > > +_scratch_xfs_repair && _fail "!!! xfs_repair of single AG filesystem > > succeeded" > > This is not necessary - the golden image compare at the end of the > test will detect this succeeding when it shoul dbe failing. But it is not very informative about "why" the test failed. This message will make it clear to the user. > > Cheers, > > Dave. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 2011-06-10 23:25 ` Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-06-11 6:59 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-06-11 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chandra Seetharaman; +Cc: XFS Mailing List On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 04:25:58PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 07:41 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:39:47PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Test case 202 tries to create a single AG filesystem and runs xfs_repair > > > on it expecting it to fail. > > > > > > But, when I run the test with a filesystem that is bigger than 1TB it > > > fails (not pleasantly) since the max AG size is 1TB. > > > > > > I am thinking of the following solution, please let me know if there is > > > any other elegant fix. > > > > > > chandra > > > ------------------------ > > > diff --git a/202 b/202 > > > index cbdcb57..b871d8b 100755 > > > --- a/202 > > > +++ b/202 > > > @@ -42,10 +42,12 @@ _supported_os Linux > > > _require_scratch > > > > > > echo "== Creating single-AG filesystem ==" > > > -_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 > > > +_scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 >/dev/null 2>&1 \ > > > + || _scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=1 -d size=268435455b >/dev/null 2>&1 > > > + || _fail "!!! failed to make filesystem" > > > > Why the second mkfs attempt with a fixed block size? > > to see if the mkfs failed because the default filesystem size is too > big. The reason for the failure will be in the test output. If the tests fail, you should be looking at the test output to find out why anyway, right? > > That will > > still fail for block size > 4k. > > Realized that. It should have been absolute. > > > All you need to do is detect the > > first attempt failed. > > But, I didn't want the test to fail, instead want it to proceed if big > filesystem was the reason for failure. > > By now you might have seen my response to Christoph's email. What do you > think of that ? I haven't seen it yet. > > > echo "== Trying to repair it (should fail) ==" > > > -_scratch_xfs_repair > > > +_scratch_xfs_repair && _fail "!!! xfs_repair of single AG filesystem > > > succeeded" > > > > This is not necessary - the golden image compare at the end of the > > test will detect this succeeding when it shoul dbe failing. > > But it is not very informative about "why" the test failed. This message > will make it clear to the user. It's perfectly clear - the output says "should fail" and so if the test is failed due to golden output mismatches due to repair succeeding, it's pretty clear why the test failed. http://users.on.net/~david_chinner/blog/xfstests_and_golden_output.html -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-11 7:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-06-10 20:39 Failure of xfstests test case 202 Chandra Seetharaman 2011-06-10 21:19 ` Christoph Hellwig 2011-06-10 21:33 ` Chandra Seetharaman 2011-06-11 7:07 ` Dave Chinner 2011-06-10 21:41 ` Dave Chinner 2011-06-10 23:25 ` Chandra Seetharaman 2011-06-11 6:59 ` Dave Chinner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox