Re: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 08:39:06PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Posting this just in case it rings any bells, though I plan to
>> investigate...
>>
>> [root@inode xfstests]# ./check  166
>> FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
>> PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 inode 2.6.23-0.71.rc2.fc8
>> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -bsize=4096 /dev/sdb6
>> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb6 /mnt/sdb6
>>
>> 166      - output mismatch (see 166.out.bad)
>> 2,6c2,7
>> < 0: [0..31]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 32
>> < 1: [32..127]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 96 10000
>> < 2: [128..159]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 32
>> < 3: [160..223]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 64 10000
>> < 4: [224..255]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 32
>> ---
>>> /mnt/sdb6/test_file:  XX..YY AG (AA..BB)
>>> 0: [0..7]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 8
>>> 1: [8..127]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 120 10000
>>> 2: [128..135]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 8
>>> 3: [136..247]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 112 10000
>>> 4: [248..255]: XX..YY AG (AA..BB) 8
> 
> When you post the failure, someone will say, "Duh, that's obvious".

fine, fine ;-)

> Well: Duh! That's obvious. ;)
> 
> You've got 3x4k written blocks in the file which is *correct*.
> There's nothing wrong with the kernel code. It's just that the test
> is expecting 3x16k extents to be marked written.
> 
> See the problem yet?
> 
> mmap dirties entire pages. page size differs between platforms -
> ia64 = 16k, x86 = 4k - so the size of the extent allocated is
> different. Guess what platform I wrote the test on and use as my
> primary platform?
> 
> The output needs better filtering, methinks.

yeah, figured it had something to do w/ the ia64 weenies when I saw the
32 vs. 8, factor of 4 ... fine, fine, my bad.  :)

Thanks,

-Eric

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.