Is test xfs/096 correct?

Is test xfs/096 correct?

[Jan Tulak]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

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).

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

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1438 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]

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

Re: Is test xfs/096 correct?

[Brian Foster]

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

Re: Is test xfs/096 correct?

[Jan Tulak]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> wrote:

> 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:
>

​Ah, ok, thank you for explaining it to me, I understand the test now. :-)

Cheers,
Jan​


-- 
Jan Tulak
jtulak@redhat.com / jan@tulak.me

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1449 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]

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

Re: Is test xfs/096 correct?

[Eric Sandeen]

On 12/4/15 6:20 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> BTW: I tried to look for the mentioned pv number, but didn't found it - where should I look further?

That's the old internal SGI bug tracking system, not visible to the outside.

-Eric

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