From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: rjohnston@sgi.com
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/10] xfstests: rework large filesystem testing - add golden output
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:26:41 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120905222641.GJ15292@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1343291989-14987-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:43:27PM -0500, rjohnston@sgi.com wrote:
> Patch "rework large filesystem testing" introduces a new option --large-fs
> which creates a new file $SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space. If this 10 part patchset is
> applied, the following tests will fail:
> 019 026 027 028 046 047 050 056 059 060 062 063 064 065 066
That's a lot more tests than I see failing.
> This patch accounts for the following new output when testing xfs filesystems with
> the --large-fs option by creating new output file to compare against
> ($seq.largefs.out):
Creating new output files is the absolute last resort. Indeed, what
happens when you get different output for tests that already select
an output file based on, say, platform or some other criteria? We
get a combinatorial explosion of golden output files, and that is
simply not manageable.
The usual thing to do is update the necessary filters or change the
way the tests run to avoid trivial output file differences e.g. use
a subdir rather than SCRATCH_MNT directly. Or, for example the
filters that munge different standard error messages from different
platforms to be the same...
> 1. The following four lines appear in test 019.
> File: "./.use_space"
> Size: 6312890368 Filetype: Regular File
> Mode: (0600/-rw-------) Uid: (0) Gid: (0)
> Device: <DEVICE> Inode: <INODE> Links: 1
This test doesn't really need to be run for large filesystems -
running it on large filesystems doesn't improve the coverage of or
our confidence in the code it is testing, so I'd just add a
_require_no_large_scratch_dev to it.
> 2. When the nodump attribute is set, the xfsdump -e option will cause the
> following additional lines to appear.
> xfsdump: NOTE: pruned 1 files: skip attribute set
> Only in SCRATCH_MNT: .use_space
> SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space
Ok, those are the errors I haven't seen - not sure why. I'll have to
look into that.
However, this is definitely a case of updating the dump output
filter to remove these messages from the output stream. The
alternative is to change the common dump code to use a subdirectory
rather than the root directory so it doesn't see these files at all.
> 3. Number of files off by one.
> xfsrestore: # directories and (off by 1) entries processed
That would be fixed by using a subdir for the dump tests. I don't
recommend that the number should be filtered, as having dump report
the correct number of files scanned is important.
> [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] (off by 1) 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------]
Perhaps the usre/group of the use_space file needs to be changed so
it doesn't impact on the test results. Alternatively, a filter could
be written/modified to fix the number appropriately.
> This patch also modifies check and common.quota to use the new output file
> $seq.largefs.out when the --large-fs option is used (LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV = yes)
> or $seq.out when the --large-fs option is NOT used (LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV != yes).
>
> Signed-off-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>
>
> ---
> 019.largefs.out | 5 +++
> 026.largefs.out | 4 ++-
> 027.largefs.out | 2 -
> 028.largefs.out | 5 +++
> 046.largefs.out | 3 +-
> 047.largefs.out | 5 +++
> 050.largefs.out | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> 056.largefs.out | 3 +-
> 059.largefs.out | 2 +
> 060.largefs.out | 4 ++-
> 062.largefs.out | 2 +
> 063.largefs.out | 3 +-
> 064.largefs.out | 41 ++++++++++++++++---------------
> 065.largefs.out | 29 +++++++++++-----------
> 066.largefs.out | 3 +-
> check | 12 +++++++--
> common.quota | 20 ++++++++++-----
> 17 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
FWIW, this patch is supposed to add these *.largefs.out files, right? The
patch, however:
> Index: b/019.largefs.out
> ===================================================================
> --- a/019.largefs.out
> +++ b/019.largefs.out
> @@ -9,6 +9,11 @@ Wrote 2048.00Kb (value 0x2c)
> Mode: (0777/drwxrwxrwx) Uid: (3) Gid: (1)
> Device: <DEVICE> Inode: <INODE> Links: 3
>
> + File: "./.use_space"
> + Size: 6312890368 Filetype: Regular File
> + Mode: (0600/-rw-------) Uid: (0) Gid: (0)
> +Device: <DEVICE> Inode: <INODE> Links: 1
> +
> File: "./bigfile"
> Size: 2097152 Filetype: Regular File
> Mode: (0666/-rw-rw-rw-) Uid: (3) Gid: (0)
... assumes they already exist...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-05 22:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20120831194326.741195404@sgi.com>
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 0/10] xfstests: rework large filesystem testing Dave Chinner
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 01/10] xfstests: add --largefs check option Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 14:00 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 19:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 02/10] xfstests: rename USE_BIG_LOOPFS to be more generic Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 14:01 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-31 23:30 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 19:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 03/10] xfstests: rename RETAIN_AG_BYTES Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 14:01 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 19:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 04/10] xfstests: use preallocation for ag-wiper Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 14:02 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 19:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 05/10] xfstests: use command line option for setting extra space Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 14:02 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 19:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 06/10] xfstest: enable xfs_repair for large filesystem testing Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 14:02 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 19:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 07/10] xfstests: always us test option when checking large scratch device Dave Chinner
2012-07-26 17:21 ` Paulo Alcantara
2012-08-28 14:02 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 19:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 08/10] xfstests: enable large fs testing on ext4 Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 20:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-05 16:27 ` Rich Johnston
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 09/10] xfstests: disable tests that typically fail on large filesystems Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 14:03 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 8:39 ` [PATCH 10/10] xfstests: exclude largefs fill files from dump tests Dave Chinner
2012-08-28 14:03 ` Rich Johnston
2012-08-28 20:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-08-14 21:40 ` [PATCH 0/10] xfstests: rework large filesystem testing Dave Chinner
2012-09-05 21:34 ` [PATCH 11/10] xfstests: rework large filesystem testing - add golden output Ben Myers
2012-09-05 22:26 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-09-06 12:57 ` Rich Johnston
2012-09-06 23:07 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120905222641.GJ15292@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=rjohnston@sgi.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox