From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p5B7749c045439 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:07:04 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D82D014EBD57 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wxIKWemM2I66RHmk for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:07:00 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Failure of xfstests test case 202 Message-ID: <20110611070700.GB32466@dastard> References: <1307738387.7661.450.camel@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com> <20110610211911.GA11509@infradead.org> <1307741624.7661.453.camel@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1307741624.7661.453.camel@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com 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