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 q9TDP3KN168211 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:25:03 -0500 Message-ID: <508E8480.5020507@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:28:32 -0500 From: Rich Johnston MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfstests: test ext4 statfs References: <5089749C.4050003@redhat.com> <508AD066.4090102@sgi.com> <508AD8E8.1040301@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <508AD8E8.1040301@redhat.com> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: ext4 development , xfs-oss On 10/26/2012 01:39 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 10/26/12 1:03 PM, Rich Johnston wrote: >> On 10/25/2012 12:19 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> Calculating free blocks in ext[234] is surprisingly hard, since >>> by default we report "bsd" style df which doesn't count filesystem >>> "overhead" blocks as used. >>> >>> With a lot of code dedicated to sorting out what to report as >>> free, things tend to go wrong surprisingly often. >>> >>> Here's a test to actually try to stop the next regression. ;) >>> >>> NB: For bsddf, the kernel currently does not count journal blocks >>> as overhead; it probably should. But the test below looks to have >>> the result within 1% of perfection, so it still passes even if >>> the kernel doesn't count the journal against free blocks. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen >>> >>> --- >>> > > > Yep - it's an ext4 bug. I sent a patch to fix it. > > [PATCH] ext4: fix overhead calculations in ext4_stats, again > > You might want to retest w/ that. > > -Eric > >>> + Thanks Eric, Everything passes now. Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs