From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D417129DF8 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:35:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40798F8035 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id NQ6S1W8wVZA7KwBs for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:35:15 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsync-tester: fix pwrite() return check and disable direct for test 19 Message-ID: <20130612023515.GV29338@dastard> References: <1370999583-16725-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1370999583-16725-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Josef Bacik Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:13:03PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Test 19 in direct mode was failing on xfs because it was not actually doing the > write because the writes were not sectorsize aligned. This test is to test > btrfs's inline extent fsync()ing so the writes won't be sectorsize aligned, and > inline extents will fall back to buffered anyway so direct mode is meaningless > for this test. So just check if we are test 19 and disable direct mode so we > don't have to change the golden output. Also change test_five() to compare > against a ssize_t instead of a size_t since apparently comparing against size_t > makes it cast the return value of pwrite() to size_t which screws up the error > case, so instead of seeing the pwrite() error on xfs which would have explained > this all it appeared as if it was succeeding and screwing up the fsync(), which > unfortunately wasted a bit of Daves time. This patch should fix all this up. You need to breathe when you type, Josef. ;) > Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik > --- > src/fsync-tester.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/fsync-tester.c b/src/fsync-tester.c > index f0875fc..1c03ed0 100644 > --- a/src/fsync-tester.c > +++ b/src/fsync-tester.c > @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ static int test_five() > > memset(buf, character, 3072); > for (i = 0; i < runs; i++) { > - size_t write_size = (random() % 3072) + 1; > + ssize_t write_size = (random() % 3072) + 1; > > if (pwrite(test_fd, buf, write_size, 0) < write_size) { > fprintf(stderr, "Short write %d\n", errno); > @@ -419,6 +419,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > if (optind >= argc) > usage(); > > + /* > + * test 19 is for smaller than blocksize writes to test btrfs's inline > + * extent fsyncing, so direct_io doesn't make sense and in fact doesn't > + * work for other file systems, so just disable direct io for this test. > + */ > + if (test == 19) > + direct_io = 0; > + Yup, looks good. Passes for me now ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs