From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q86CuBcL070765 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:56:11 -0500 Message-ID: <50489DAE.7060904@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:57:18 -0500 From: Rich Johnston MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/10] xfstests: rework large filesystem testing - add golden output References: <20120831194326.741195404@sgi.com> <1343291989-14987-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20120905222641.GJ15292@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20120905222641.GJ15292@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Thanks for the comments. On 09/05/2012 05:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:43:27PM -0500, rjohnston@sgi.com wrote: >> Patch "rework large filesystem testing" introduces a new option --large-fs >> which creates a new file $SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space. If this 10 part patchset is >> applied, the following tests will fail: >> 019 026 027 028 046 047 050 056 059 060 062 063 064 065 066 > > That's a lot more tests than I see failing. It is very repeatable for me. > >> This patch accounts for the following new output when testing xfs filesystems with >> the --large-fs option by creating new output file to compare against >> ($seq.largefs.out): > > Creating new output files is the absolute last resort. Indeed, what > happens when you get different output for tests that already select > an output file based on, say, platform or some other criteria? We > get a combinatorial explosion of golden output files, and that is > simply not manageable. > > The usual thing to do is update the necessary filters or change the > way the tests run to avoid trivial output file differences e.g. use > a subdir rather than SCRATCH_MNT directly. Or, for example the > filters that munge different standard error messages from different > platforms to be the same... > OK good to know. >> 1. The following four lines appear in test 019. >> File: "./.use_space" >> Size: 6312890368 Filetype: Regular File >> Mode: (0600/-rw-------) Uid: (0) Gid: (0) >> Device: Inode: Links: 1 > > This test doesn't really need to be run for large filesystems - > running it on large filesystems doesn't improve the coverage of or > our confidence in the code it is testing, so I'd just add a > _require_no_large_scratch_dev to it. > Works for me. >> 2. When the nodump attribute is set, the xfsdump -e option will cause the >> following additional lines to appear. >> xfsdump: NOTE: pruned 1 files: skip attribute set >> Only in SCRATCH_MNT: .use_space >> SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space > > Ok, those are the errors I haven't seen - not sure why. I'll have to > look into that. > > However, this is definitely a case of updating the dump output > filter to remove these messages from the output stream. The > alternative is to change the common dump code to use a subdirectory > rather than the root directory so it doesn't see these files at all. > Good suggestion >> 3. Number of files off by one. >> xfsrestore: # directories and (off by 1) entries processed > > That would be fixed by using a subdir for the dump tests. I don't > recommend that the number should be filtered, as having dump report > the correct number of files scanned is important. I agree. > >> [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] (off by 1) 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------] > > Perhaps the usre/group of the use_space file needs to be changed so > it doesn't impact on the test results. Alternatively, a filter could > be written/modified to fix the number appropriately. Sounds reasonable. > >> This patch also modifies check and common.quota to use the new output file >> $seq.largefs.out when the --large-fs option is used (LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV = yes) >> or $seq.out when the --large-fs option is NOT used (LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV != yes). >> >> Signed-off-by: Rich Johnston >> >> --- >> 019.largefs.out | 5 +++ >> 026.largefs.out | 4 ++- >> 027.largefs.out | 2 - >> 028.largefs.out | 5 +++ >> 046.largefs.out | 3 +- >> 047.largefs.out | 5 +++ >> 050.largefs.out | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- >> 056.largefs.out | 3 +- >> 059.largefs.out | 2 + >> 060.largefs.out | 4 ++- >> 062.largefs.out | 2 + >> 063.largefs.out | 3 +- >> 064.largefs.out | 41 ++++++++++++++++--------------- >> 065.largefs.out | 29 +++++++++++----------- >> 066.largefs.out | 3 +- >> check | 12 +++++++-- >> common.quota | 20 ++++++++++----- >> 17 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-) > > FWIW, this patch is supposed to add these *.largefs.out files, right? The > patch, however: > >> Index: b/019.largefs.out >> =================================================================== >> --- a/019.largefs.out >> +++ b/019.largefs.out >> @@ -9,6 +9,11 @@ Wrote 2048.00Kb (value 0x2c) >> Mode: (0777/drwxrwxrwx) Uid: (3) Gid: (1) >> Device: Inode: Links: 3 >> >> + File: "./.use_space" >> + Size: 6312890368 Filetype: Regular File >> + Mode: (0600/-rw-------) Uid: (0) Gid: (0) >> +Device: Inode: Links: 1 >> + >> File: "./bigfile" >> Size: 2097152 Filetype: Regular File >> Mode: (0666/-rw-rw-rw-) Uid: (3) Gid: (0) > > ... assumes they already exist... > Yup my bad, I only posted the differences from the original *.out files. May I make the suggested changes, or as this is your patchset do you want to make them? Regards, --Rich > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs