From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111])
	by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EE37F58
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon,  2 Dec 2013 18:38:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15])
	by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D323A8F8094
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon,  2 Dec 2013 16:38:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net
	[150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id
	O0hwvMYiEa3VEhAj for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>;
	Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:37:59 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfstests: introduce _require_xfs_crc_sb pre-checkup
	routine
Message-ID: <20131203003759.GI10988@dastard>
References: <52983C41.8000004@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52983C41.8000004@oracle.com>
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=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: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 03:03:29PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
> From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> 
> Introduce _require_xfs_crc_sb to rc.  We can use it in pre-checkup
> procedures to verify if the XFS test environment is configured with
> CRC enabled or not for some particular test cases.
> 
> Introduce a new helper _xfs_sb_version to get XFS super block version
> to make the test case more flexiable if possible. e.g, if that is
> v5 super block, the tests behavior might be different to old v4 sb.
> 
> Refactor xfs/299 to use it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> ---
>  common/rc     | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  tests/xfs/299 |  9 +--------
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> index f73414b..9f45279 100644
> --- a/common/rc
> +++ b/common/rc
> @@ -1579,6 +1579,25 @@ _check_xfs_filesystem()
>      return 0
>  }
>  
> +# Get XFS super block version
> +_xfs_sb_version()
> +{
> +	sb_version=`$XFS_DB_PROG -r -c version $SCRATCH_DEV | \
> +		    awk -F= '{print $2}' | awk -F, '{print $1}' | \
> +		    cut -c3-`
> +	echo $sb_version
> +}

Ugh. I missed how nasty that code was originally. Maths, not string
manipulations shoul dbe used here. i.e:

	versionnum  filesystem  version  information.   This value is
		    currently 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the low 4 bits.

[ Oh, look, xfs_db man page updates are needed ]

So:

	$XFS_DB_PROG -r -c "sb 0" -c "p versionnum" $SCRATCH_DEV | \
		awk '{ printf "%d\n", and(strtonum($3), 15) }'


> +# This test requires XFS crc-enabled (v5) super block support
> +_require_xfs_crc_sb()
> +{
> +	version=`_xfs_sb_version`
> +	if [ $version -lt 5 ]
> +	then
> +		_notrun "Can't run with older versions of superblock"

		_notrun "Need version 5 superblock support for this test"
> +	fi
> +}
> +

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs