From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q3H6VTeK021647 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:31:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4F8D0DBC.4020105@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:29:16 +0800 From: Jeff Liu MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: Introduce test case 285 to check statfs(2) will not cause ASSERT(XFS_IS_QUOTA_RUNNING(mp)) failed. References: <4F87ED3D.5060105@oracle.com> <20120416174929.GD2924@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20120416174929.GD2924@sgi.com> Reply-To: jeff.liu@oracle.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi Ben, On 04/17/2012 01:49 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > Jeff, > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:09:17PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: >> Call statfs(2) against a project directory cause ASSERT(XFS_IS_QUOTA_RUNNING(mp)) at xfs_qm_dqget() failed pre-vanilla kernel-3.4 >> if the "pquota" or "prjquota" mount option was not enabled on the underlying partition. This test case can help checking it. > > A nice find. > >> +echo "Silence is golden." >> + >> +# Modify as appropriate. >> +_supported_fs xfs >> +_supported_os Linux >> +_require_xfs_quota >> +_require_scratch >> + >> +proj_dir="${SCRATCH_MNT}/test_project" >> +test_file="${proj_dir}/test_file" >> + >> +_scratch_mkfs_xfs >/dev/null 2>&1 >> +_qmount >> + >> +mkdir $proj_dir >> +touch $test_file >> + >> +$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c "project -s -p ${proj_dir} 2012" $SCRATCH_DEV \ >> + >/dev/null 2>&1 >> +du -sh $proj_dir >/dev/null 2>&1 > > I was unable to reproduce this until I changed 'du -sh' to 'df'. Now it does > crash consistently without your fix for xfs_fs_statfs(). Thanks for help review. Strange, I can always reproducing that with du(1). How about call `stat -f /xxx` to be a bit more explicit from the testing point of view? > > With that change you can consider this > Reviewed-by: Ben Myers Sure, I will add that. Thanks, -Jeff > > -Ben > > _______________________________________________ > 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