From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l782wjbm029428 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:58:47 -0700 Message-ID: <46B9316A.40508@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:58:50 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel References: <46B91EBA.10407@sandeen.net> <20070808025615.GH52011508@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070808025615.GH52011508@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs-oss 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.