From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Jan Tulak <jtulak@redhat.com>
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Is test xfs/096 correct?
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:00:01 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151204130000.GA47882@bfoster.bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACj3i71kgpqNvg0ru=-4x6gtJ8faOVn-P=y_AM+xwoKbm-55tQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:20:26PM +0100, Jan Tulak wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'm looking on test xfs/096 and I'm not sure if I got it right:
>
> "test out mkfs_xfs output on IRIX/Linux and some of its error handling,
> ensure pv#920679 is addressed" - this, and things like "$max_lr_size +
> 4096" all looks like mkfs should be catching invalid input. Yet the .out
> file instead looks like it should create the FS correctly (it contains the
> created fs stats instead of mkfs's usage and some error).
>
max_lr_size refers to the maximum log record size (256k). When a larger
log stripe unit is passed, mkfs warns about it and adjusts to the
default:
$ mkfs.xfs -f -l su=266240 ./tmp
log stripe unit (266240 bytes) is too large (maximum is 256KiB)
log stripe unit adjusted to 32KiB
meta-data=./tmp isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=655360
blks
= sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1
= crc=0 finobt=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=2621440, imaxpct=25
= sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0
log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2
= sectsz=512 sunit=8 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
The mkfs_filter() function in xfs/096 filters out the warning messages
(iirc, the warning is a relatively recent addition), so the test output
file expects the typical (filtered) mkfs output.
Brian
> So either I'm reading the test wrong, or the patch approves invalid
> behaviour. I hit this test because when I added a stricter input
> validation, this patch started to fail as mkfs is now refusing to create
> the fs with these arguments.
>
> BTW: I tried to look for the mentioned pv number, but didn't found it -
> where should I look further?
> Cheers
> Jan
>
> --
> Jan Tulak
> jtulak@redhat.com / jan@tulak.me
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-04 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-04 12:20 Is test xfs/096 correct? Jan Tulak
2015-12-04 13:00 ` Brian Foster [this message]
2015-12-04 14:04 ` Jan Tulak
2015-12-04 14:43 ` Eric Sandeen
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=20151204130000.GA47882@bfoster.bfoster \
--to=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=jtulak@redhat.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