Re: REVIEW XFSQA test out xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit attr2/attr1 fix

[Timothy Shimmin <tes@sgi.com>]

Hi Dave and Barry,

David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:10:36PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> A test to test out Eric's fix for xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit
>> bug when going from attr2 to attr1.
>>
>> With TOT kernel, without patch, one can see the corrupted inline
>> dirents. With patch, all is well.
>>
>> The 186.out _should_ be output'ing ATTR2 for the db version
>> command but I'm awaiting Barry's xfsprogs checkin to fix that one -
>> and then I will regenerate it.
> 
> Really? I'm seeing it fail with ATTR2 in the xfs_db output...
> 
That's what I used to see until I updated to TOT kernel.
That's weird.
And I don't know why ATTR and ATTR2 is coming out either.
I assume it is all about the recent version 2 changes,
and what was done in userspace and in the kernel.
Barry, can you enlighten us here?
Do we have latest changes for xfs_db and mkfs now?
That's why I was waiting to ensure I had the latest user changes;
it feels like xfs_db is getting things wrong as the
mkfs and kernel behaviour seems to be behaving like I expected.

--Tim

> dgc@budgie:~/xfstests$ sudo ./check 186
> FSTYP         -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM      -- Linux/ia64 budgie 2.6.25-rc3-dgc-xfs
> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -bsize=4096 /dev/sdb6
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb6 /mnt/scratch
> 
> 186      - output mismatch (see 186.out.bad)
> 13a14
>> ATTR2
> 98a100
>> ATTR2
> Failures: 186
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
> dgc@budgie:~/xfstests$
> 
> So the first is supposed to be there, but the second shows:
> 
> ....
> =================================
> ATTR
> ATTR2
> core.forkoff = 47
> ....
> 
> Are both supposed to be present?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.